Wingate v. Ferris

California Supreme Court

Wingate v. Ferris

50 Cal. 105, 1875 Cal. LEXIS 98

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1875

DocketNo. 3883

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 50 Cal. 105 (Wingate v. Ferris) 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

Wingate v. Ferris, 50 Cal. 105, 1875 Cal. LEXIS 98 (Cal. 1875).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court, McKinstry, J.:

The complaint contains a statement of a cause of action such as would entitle the plaintiff to equitable relief.

[108]*108We entertain no doubt that the District Court had power to set aside the general verdict and the judgment entered thereon. As the cause was one of equity cognizance, the facts should have been found by the court, or specially by a jury, under an order of the court. The order vacating the verdict and judgment was proper, but we can see no reason why the testimony should be retaken.

That portion of the order appealed from which directs a new trial, reversed; that portion thereof which orders that the verdict and judgment be vacated and set aside, is affirmed. And the District Court is directed, upon the testimony already taken (and upon such other and further testimony, if any, as may be taken, in case the said District Court shall, in its discretion, open the cause for further testimony), to proceed to determine the issues of fact joined herein and to adjudge and decree final judgment in this action.

Mr. Justice Crockett did not express an opinion.

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

By the Court, McKinstry, J.:

The complaint contains a statement of a cause of action such as would entitle the plaintiff to equitable relief.

[108]*108We entertain no doubt that the District Court had power to set aside the general verdict and the judgment entered thereon. As the cause was one of equity cognizance, the facts should have been found by the court, or specially by a jury, under an order of the court. The order vacating the verdict and judgment was proper, but we can see no reason why the testimony should be retaken.

That portion of the order appealed from which directs a new trial, reversed; that portion thereof which orders that the verdict and judgment be vacated and set aside, is affirmed. And the District Court is directed, upon the testimony already taken (and upon such other and further testimony, if any, as may be taken, in case the said District Court shall, in its discretion, open the cause for further testimony), to proceed to determine the issues of fact joined herein and to adjudge and decree final judgment in this action.

Mr. Justice Crockett did not express an opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 Cal. 105, 1875 Cal. LEXIS 98, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wingate-v-ferris-cal-1875.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack