Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

William H. Gray, Respondent, v. Cornelius J. Eaton&others, Appellants

         JUDGES: Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Bryan, J., concurred.

         OPINION

          HEYDENFELDT, Judge

         The chancellor directed certain issues to be determined by a jury. This he had the right to do, as it might aid to inform his conscience. By the finding he is not bound any more than in his sound judgment it is supported by the evidence. So in his decree he may be governed by it, or he may disregard it.

         The application, therefore, of the defendants for a new trial upon the issues, was supererogatory; because the judge had not yet decreed upon the verdict. But if he had, it was a matter in his mere discretion to grant or refuse the application, which is not revisable.

         The appeal is dismissed.

Held in Duff v. Fisher , 15 Cal. 375, that the Practice Act applies to equitable as well as legal actions; overruling

Gray Eaton Walker Sedgwick, ante
Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

Gray v. Eaton
(Oct 1, 1855)