Tinney v. Endicott
CARLETON K. TINNEY and WILLIAM S. LITTLE v. WILLIAM H. ENDICOTT
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Solomon Heydenfeldt (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Heydenfeldt
Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.
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 *103Court 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.
Cited by
- People v. Williams · 1867-07-01