Crook v. Forsyth
JAMES CROOK v. WILLIAM K. FORSYTH
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Shafter (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 — Shafter
By the Court, Shafter, J. :
A new trial was asked for below on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the decision of the Court on the merits.
The burden of proof under the issues jóined was upon the *663defendant, and his testimony was so far inconsistent with itself that the Court, acting advisedly, could not, in our judgment, have come to any other conclusion than it did. There was a conflict in the testimony, and it was all the more fatal for being intestine.
Judgment affirmed.
Mr. Justice Sanderson expressed no opinion.
Cited by
- Anglo American Land Co. v. Sundberg Civ. No. 4871. · 1924-03-25
- Dorris v. McManus Crim. No. 212. · 1906-07-20
- Brock v. Pearson No. 13869 · 1891-02-03
- McLennan v. Bank of California No. 12944 · 1891-01-31
- People ex rel. Love v. Center No. 7,087 · 1885-04-03
- People ex rel. Love v. Center No. 7,087 · 1885-04-03
- Crow v. Hildreth No. 1,978. · 1870-07-05