Orton

Orton v. Brown

Good Law
117 Cal. 501·1897 Cal. LEXIS 690·49 P. 583
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 8, 1897S. F. No. 586California772 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Haynes, J.

This appeal is from a judgment in favor of the defendants entered upon a verdict of the jury in their favor.

This case was before this court upon an appeal from an order denying the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, and said order was affirmed. (Orton v. Brown, 113 Cal. 561 .) We can conceive of no reason why both appeals were not taken at the same time. It would certainly have lessened the expense to the parties and materially lessened the labors of this court to haye had both appeals taken and heard together.

Appellant states the questions to be determined on this appeal as follow's: “1. Is the verdict sufficient to support the judgment? 2. Does the verdict correspond with the issues presented by the pleadings? 3. What issues do the pleadings present?”

As to the first point it may be said that if any material issue is raised by the pleadings the verdict must support the judgment; so that the only question is whether any issue w'as made which, if decided in favor of the defendants, entitled them to a judgment.

This action is upon the bond of T. M. Brown, as sheriff of Humboldt county. The plaintiff is the assignee of the Consumers’ Lumber Company, an insolvent corporation.…

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.