Waterman v. Samuels

California Supreme Court

Waterman v. Samuels

16 Cal. 123, 1860 Cal. LEXIS 183

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1860

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 16 Cal. 123 (Waterman v. Samuels) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Waterman v. Samuels, 16 Cal. 123, 1860 Cal. LEXIS 183 (Cal. 1860).

Pincite

Opinion

Field, C. J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Cope, J. and Baldwin, J. concurring.

It is stated in the brief of the counsel of the appellant, that the record in this case embodies the material facts and raises the same questions which were presented in Waterman v. Smith, (13 Cal. 373) and that unless the Court is disposed to review the decision in that case, it is conclusive of the present appeal. The decision in that case was the result of mature consideration, and we have seen no reason, since it was rendered, for departing from or qualifying it. On the contrary, we have had frequent occasion to refer to, and approve of it. Upon the opening statement, therefore, of the learned counsel, without examining the record, we must affirm the judgment, and it is not necessary to consider the objection that the appellant did not connect himself, by competent evidence, with the Armijo grant, under which he claims to hold the demanded premises.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Field, C. J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Cope, J. and Baldwin, J. concurring.

It is stated in the brief of the counsel of the appellant, that the record in this case embodies the material facts and raises the same questions which were presented in Waterman v. Smith, (13 Cal. 373) and that unless the Court is disposed to review the decision in that case, it is conclusive of the present appeal. The decision in that case was the result of mature consideration, and we have seen no reason, since it was rendered, for departing from or qualifying it. On the contrary, we have had frequent occasion to refer to, and approve of it. Upon the opening statement, therefore, of the learned counsel, without examining the record, we must affirm the judgment, and it is not necessary to consider the objection that the appellant did not connect himself, by competent evidence, with the Armijo grant, under which he claims to hold the demanded premises.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 Cal. 123, 1860 Cal. LEXIS 183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waterman-v-samuels-cal-1860.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack