gno.law

Nelson v. Lemmon

California Supreme Court · · 1858-07-01 · Published · 10 Cal. 49 · 1858 Cal. LEXIS 185

NELSON v. LEMMON

Area
civil
Panel
Lawrence F. Terry (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 — Terry

Terry, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court Field J., concurring.

*50In this case appellant assigns as error the refusal of the Court to give certain instructions, but the record contains no statement of the evidence to show that the instructions asked had any relation to the facts proven.

In White v. Wentworth, (3 Cal., 246,) we held : “ All intendments must he in favor of sustaining the judgments of Courts of original jurisdiction, and to disturb such judgment, it is not sufficient that error may have intervened, but it must be affirmatively shown by the record. Therefore, the naked directions of a Court, unaccompanied with any statement of facts, can not satisfy us of substantial error, although some of the directions may not be in consonance with the rules of law. They, may be in reference to the facts, merely abstract, or only detrimental to the party not complaining of error, or totally inapt to mislead the jury.”

This rule applies with much greater force to the refusal of the Court to give instructions.

Judgment affirmed.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by