White v. Abernathy, Clark & Co.

3 Cal. 426
California Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1853·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Heydenfeldt, Justice,

Murray, Chief Justice, concurring.

The record contains no relation of the facts as they were disclosed in the court below, and the only bill of exceptions is one which contains the directions of the court to the jury. All intendments must be in favor of sustaining the judgments of courts of original jurisdiction, and to disturb such judgment, it is not sufficient that error may have intervened, but it must be affirmatively shown by the record. Therefore the naked directions of a court, unaccompanied with any statement of facts, cannot satisfy us of substantial error, although some of the directions may not be in consonance with the rules of law. They may be in reference to the facts, merely abstract, or only detrimental to the party not complaining of error, or totally inapt to mislead the jury.

Judgment affirmed.

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

White v. Abernathy, Clark & Co., 3 Cal. 426 (Cal. 1853).

3 Cal. 426 (White v. Abernathy, Clark & Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Preston
38 P. 694 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1894)
State v. Perry
38 P. 655 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1894)
Frost v. Grizzly Bluff Creamery Co.
36 P. 929 (California Supreme Court, 1894)
Henderson v. Morris
5 Or. 24 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1873)
Fulton v. Earhart
4 Or. 61 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1870)
Goodman v. Minear Mining & Milling Co.
1 Idaho 131 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1867)
Willson v. Truebody
1 Cal. Unrep. 156 (California Supreme Court, 1864)
Nelson v. Mitchell
10 Cal. 92 (California Supreme Court, 1858)