Matthews v. Jones
HUGH MATTHEWS v. JAMES M. JONES
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Vanclief (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 — Vanclief
Vanclief, C.
The action is ejectment for the recovery of 320 acres of land situate in the county of San Benito. The case was tried by a jury; verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendants bring this appeal from the judgment upon the judgment roll, in which there is no bill of exceptions.
There was a general demurrer to the complaint, which was properly overruled by the court, and no specific objection to the complaint is made here.
*564What purport to be instructions of the court to the jury are printed in the transcript, and appellants contend that some of them are erroneous. As they constitute no part of the judgment roll, they were improperly included in the transcript, and cannot be considered.
As it appears that the appeal is without merit or plausible excuse, and was evidently taken for delay alonej I think the judgment should be affirmed.
Foote, C., and Fitzgerald, C., concurred.
The Court.
For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment is affirmed, with two hundred dollars damages.
Cited by
- Lewis v. Superior Court C006933 · 1990-01-23
- People v. MacK Crim. 13 · 1961-11-30
- People v. Battle Crim. 1574 · 1961-01-27
- People v. Giguiere Crim. 2854 · 1958-09-11
- People v. Cullen Crim. 686 · 1950-09-18
- People v. BRAC Crim. 3922 · 1946-03-25
- People v. Morris Crim. No. 3206 · 1939-07-17
- People v. Jensen Crim. No. 2496 · 1934-04-06
- People v. Hidalgo Docket No. 2267. · 1933-01-16
- People v. Somsky Crim. No. 880. · 1920-02-28
- Moore v. Gilson Civ. No. 1280. · 1913-11-05
- People v. Peterson Crim. No. 353. · 1911-12-28
- People v. Elphis Cr. No. 962 · 1903-05-19