Frost

Frost v. Grizzly Bluff Creamery Co.

Good Law
102 Cal. 525·1894 Cal. LEXIS 679·36 P. 929
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMay 28, 1894No. 15436California467 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

McFarland, J.

This is an action to recover damages for a nuisance. The jury returned a verdict in the sum of four hundred dollars, for which amount judgment was rendered for plaintiff. Defendant (a corporation) appeals from the judgment, and brings up the judgment-roll, and a bill of exceptions which merely shows the instructions given and refused, and the exceptions thereto. Nothing else appears. A reversal is asked solely upon alleged errors in giving and refusing instructions.

In such a case a judgment will rarely be reversed. All intendments are in favor of sustaining it. If the averments in the complaint in the case at bar are true, and we must assume them to be true, the nuisance was *527 a very aggravated one, and the amount of damages allowed was exceedingly small. There was no demurrer to the complaint. Its averments were denied without any point taken as to their legal sufficiency; no objection appears to any evidence offered by respondent. It does not appear what evidence was or was not introduced; and we cannot tell upon what theory the case was tried. Under these circumstances the alleged error of the court below in refusing certain instructions asked by appellant cannot be…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.