From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tinney v. Endicott

Supreme Court of California
Jan 1, 1855
5 Cal. 102 (Cal. 1855)

Opinion

         Appeal from the District Court of the Tenth Judicial District, Nevada County.

         COUNSEL:

         E. W. F. Sloan & William M. Stewart, for Appellant.

          Alexander Anderson, and Dunn & Smith, for Respondents.


         No briefs on file.

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

         OPINION

          HEYDENFELDT, Judge

         The third instruction asked for by defendant's counsel, ought to have been given. The reason given for the refusal is, that a rule of the Court requires counsel " to file and submit to the Court any instructions they may offer, before the argument is closed, to the jury." But it appears by the statement that the cause was submitted without argument, so that there was no room for the operation of the rule.

         For this error the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.


Summaries of

Tinney v. Endicott

Supreme Court of California
Jan 1, 1855
5 Cal. 102 (Cal. 1855)
Case details for

Tinney v. Endicott

Case Details

Full title:Carleton K. Tinney&William S. Little, Respondents, v. William H. Endicott…

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Jan 1, 1855

Citations

5 Cal. 102 (Cal. 1855)

Citing Cases

People v. Williams

Our predecessors were of opinion that it was competent for Courts to adopt such a rule. (People v. Sears , 18…