Williston v. Perkins

51 Cal. 554
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1876
DocketNo. 5042
StatusPublished
Cited by34 cases

This text of 51 Cal. 554 (Williston v. Perkins) 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
Williston v. Perkins, 51 Cal. 554 (Cal. 1876).

Opinion

By the Court:

The defendants were entitled to only reasonable time in which to finish and sell the schooner, and that time having elapsed, the plaintiff could maintain this action. (19 Wall. 560.)

But the appellants claim in their points on file that there was no evidence whatever going to sustain the third finding, to the effect that by the agreement of the parties the demand [556]*556sued for was to be paid in gold coin, and this was the first ground of their motion for a new trial in the court below.

The case was submitted here without oral argument. The respondent in his printed points has not adverted to this position of the appellants. If there be in the voluminous record on file any evidence going to support the finding in the respect referred to, the respondent should have pointed it out. It is not our business to institute a search to find it.

Cause remanded, with directions to modify the judgment by striking out the gold coin clause therein,

Bemittitur forthwith.

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

Related

Sherman v. Ingelman
138 P.2d 698 (California Court of Appeal, 1943)
Public Market Co. v. City of Portland
138 P.2d 916 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1942)
Weaver v. Grunbaum
87 P.2d 406 (California Court of Appeal, 1939)
Glazer v. Klughaupt
185 A. 8 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1936)
Sutro Heights Land Co. v. Merced Irrigation District
296 P. 1088 (California Supreme Court, 1931)
Richards v. Tavares
287 P. 552 (California Court of Appeal, 1930)
Wallace v. Carlin
267 P. 596 (California Court of Appeal, 1928)
Valley Fruit Co. v. Swash
236 P. 273 (Washington Supreme Court, 1925)
Looney v. Scott
235 P. 76 (California Court of Appeal, 1925)
Goulis v. Angel
146 N.E. 222 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1925)
Banque Russo-Asiatique v. Dolch
3 F.2d 266 (Ninth Circuit, 1925)
Pegg v. Olson
222 P. 223 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1924)
Daily v. Quinn
94 So. 523 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1922)
Empire Gas & Fuel Co. v. Pendar
244 S.W. 184 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1922)
Allen v. Estate of Allen
217 Ill. App. 260 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1920)
Rosenheim v. Howze
176 P. 456 (California Supreme Court, 1918)
Greenstreet v. Cheatum
161 P. 596 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1916)
Van Buskirk v. Kuhns
129 P. 587 (California Supreme Court, 1913)
Lynch v. Keystone Consol. Mining Co.
126 P. 968 (California Supreme Court, 1912)
Simon v. Etgen
152 A.D. 399 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1912)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
51 Cal. 554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williston-v-perkins-cal-1876.