Summary
In Caulfield v. Sanders, 17 Cal. 569, the suit was upon an indebtedness alleged to be due from the defendant, who was an attorney at law.
Summary of this case from Melone v. RuffinoOpinion
[Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] Rehearing Denied 17 Cal. 569 at 573.
Appeal from the Sixth District.
COUNSEL:
L. Sanders, Jr., for Appellant.
Coffroth & Waters, for Respondent.
JUDGES: Field, C. J. delivered the opinion of the Court. Cope, J. concurring.
OPINION
FIELD, Judge
On petition for rehearing, Field, C. J. delivered the opinion of the Court--Cope, J. concurring.
Petition for rehearing. The objection taken to the instruction given by the Court, of its own motion, is more technical than substantial. It could not have prejudiced the defendant. There was no conflicting evidence in the case; and that produced, considered in connection with the answer, necessarily led to the result arrived at by the jury. (See Terry v. Sickles , 13 Cal. 427.)
The counsel for the petitioner is mistaken in supposing the verdict was rendered for one sum, and the judgment entered for another and greater sum. That portion of the transcript to which he refers is contradicted by the verdict itself, which accompanies the record.
Rehearing denied.