Martin v. Travers
MARTIN v. TRAVERS
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Stephen J. Field (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 — Field
Field, J., delivered the opinion of the Court—Baldwin, J., concurring.
The plaintiff objected to the admission of the evidence upon which the referee based his sixth finding, but upon what ground the record does not disclose. The objection fails to specify the point upon which it rests, and did not merit consideration for its generality. Kiler v. Kimball, 10 Cal. 267.
To have entitled it to notice, the party should have laid, as the authorities say, his finger on the point at the time. Practice Act, sec. 189 ; Frier v. Jackson, 8 John. 496 ; Jackson v. Caldwell, 1 Cow. 622; Whitesides v. Jackson, 1 Wend. 418; Waters v. Gilbert, 2 Cushing, 27; Covillaud v. Tanner, 7 Cal. 38.
Judgment affirmed.
Cites, in this corpus
- Kiler v. Kimbal · 1858-07-01
- Covillaud v. Tanner · 1857-07-01
Cited by
- Pene v. Mauk Civ. 5268 · 1935-03-21
- Root v. Conlin Civ. No. 4199. · 1924-01-11
- Burmester v. McNear Civ. No. 2908. · 1919-08-04
- Brumley v. Flint No. 13665 · 1891-01-15
- People v. Nichols No. 10,603 · 1881-04-19
- Cochran v. O'Keefe · 1868-07-01
- Leet v. Wilson · 1864-07-01
- Sneed v. Osborn · 1864-07-01
- Nightingale v. Scannell · 1861-07-01