Brown v. Harter
BROWN v. HARTER, Administrator
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Joseph G. Baldwin (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 — Baldwin
Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court Field C. J. and Cope, J. concurring.
The points on this appeal are merely technical. They have *77either been decided heretofore or are not of difficulty. The only one we think it necessary to notice is the refusal to permit the non-suit after the jury had retired. Some obscurity possibly exists in the opinion in Hancock Ditch Co. v. Bradford, (13 Cal. 637) in the definition of the word “ trial,” as used in the one hundred and forty-eighth section of the Practice Act; but the expressions used are explained in the subsequent portions of the opinion.
The Practice Act does not give an arbitrary right to become nonsuit after the case has been finally submitted to the jury, though it exists at any time before such final submission and their retirement.
Judgment affirmed.
Cites, in this corpus
- Hancock Ditch Co. v. Bradford · 1859-07-01
Cited by
- Abbott v. Limited Mutual Compensation Insurance Co. Civ. 10532 · 1938-12-23
- Patterson v. Superior Court Docket No. 9462. · 1934-03-01
- Goldtree v. Spreckels L.A. No. 989. · 1902-02-28
- Westbay v. Gray Sac. No. 198 · 1897-05-06