Tinney

Tinney v. Endicott

Good Law
5 Cal. 102
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 1, 1855California89 words

Lead Opinion

Heydenfeldt, J.

Murray, C. J., concurred.

The third instruction asked for by defendant’s counsel, ought to have been given. The reason given for the refusal is, that a rule of the

*103 Court requires counsel “to file and submit to the Court any instructions they may offer, before the argument is closed, to the jury.” But it appears by the statement that the cause was submitted without argument, so that there was no room for the operation of the rule.

For this error the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.