Mayo v. City of Sacramento
ELI MAYO v. CITY OF SACRAMENTO
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Joseph B. Crockett (author), Richard W. Rhodes, William T. Wallace
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 — Crockett
CROCKETT, J.
— It is clear that the court had authority to amend the judgment entered on the 18th of June, 1868, so as to make it conform to the findings, and to the order of the court directing the judgment to be entered: Swain v. Naglee, 19 Cal. 127; Morrison v. Dapman, 3 Cal. 255; Hegeler v. Hinckell, 27 Cal. 492; Casement v. Ringgold, 28 Cal. 335; Leviston v. Swan, 33 Cal. 480; Atkins v. Sawyer, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 353. And I think it is equally clear that the judgment as amended and the relief granted thereby were within the issues, and were warranted by the pleadings. I am, therefore, of opinion that the judgment ought to be affirmed.
Ordered accordingly.
We concur: Wallace, J.; Rhodes, C. J.
Cites, in this corpus
- Leviston v. Swan · 1867-10-15
- Casement v. Ringgold · 1865-07-15
- Swain v. Naglee · 1861-07-01
- Morrison v. Dapman · 1853-10-15