Blood v. Pixley
JOHN A. BLOOD v. SEYMOUR PIXLEY and T. L. SMITH
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William J. Murray, Jr. (author), Solomon Heydenfeldt, Bryan
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 — Murray
MURRAY, C. J.
— This case was improperly tried under the old act concerning appeals from justices ’ to county courts, after the present act had gone into effect, and the parties, if they felt themselves injured by the first decision of the county court, should have appealed to this court; it is, however, now too late to correct this informality. The second judgment of the county court, now appealed from, is void, under the former decisions of this court, as the judge who tried the case has failed to find his conclusions of law and fact, as required by the statute.
Judgment reversed, a new trial ordered, costs to abide the result.
Me concur: Heydenfeldt, J.; Bryan, J.