Wyatt v. Buell

47 Cal. 624
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1874·No. No. 3,828·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

By the Court:

The demurrer to the complaint was properly overruled. The publication complained of was libelous per se, and was not privileged. The libelous matter was contained in a sworn application addressed to the Justices of this Court by the defendant, requesting an extension of time to file the transcript on appeal in a cause wherein the defendant was appellant. The reason which he assigned as a ground for the extension was that he had recently met with a severe accident which disabled him from preparing the transcript on appeal. But instead of confining himself to this, which was the only material matter in his application, he proceeded to give a history of the proceedings in the cause, and charged his attorney (the present plaintiff) with having entered into a collusive agreement with the attorney for the adverse party. All this was wholly foreign to the application for an extension of time, and under no recognized rule can be .treated as privileged. The motion for a new trial was properly denied. There was no specification in the statement of the particulars wherein the evidence was insufficient to justify the verdict, nor of the errors of law which were relied upon.

Judgment and order affirmed. Remittitur forthwith.

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

Wyatt v. Buell, 47 Cal. 624 (Cal. 1874).

47 Cal. 624 (Wyatt v. Buell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sacramento Brewing Co. v. Desmond, Miller & Desmond
89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 760 (California Court of Appeal, 1999)
Smith v. Hatch
271 Cal. App. 2d 39 (California Court of Appeal, 1969)
Thornton v. Rhoden
245 Cal. App. 2d 80 (California Court of Appeal, 1966)
Kelly v. Lou Daro
118 P.2d 37 (California Court of Appeal, 1941)
People v. Faber
77 P.2d 921 (California Court of Appeal, 1938)
Donnell v. Linforth
52 P.2d 937 (California Court of Appeal, 1935)
Moore v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
9 P.2d 562 (California Court of Appeal, 1932)
Dayton v. Drumheller
182 P. 102 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1919)
Gosewisch v. Doran
119 P. 656 (California Supreme Court, 1911)
Myers v. Hodges
53 Fla. 197 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1907)
Hollis v. Meux
11 P. 248 (California Supreme Court, 1886)
Wheaton v. Whittemore
13 N.W. 769 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1882)