From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Walker v. Sedgwick

Supreme Court of California
Apr 1, 1855
5 Cal. 192 (Cal. 1855)

Opinion

         Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, County of San Joaquin.

         COUNSEL:

         Terry & Perley, for Appellant.

          Otis L. Bridges, for Respondent.


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

         OPINION

          HEYDENFELDT, Judge

         The parties agree by stipulation to submit this case upon the single point, that the Judge below failed to find the facts and conclusions of law.

         This is a case in Chancery to enforce a vendor's lien for the purchase money. In Chancery cases this Court has to examine the facts, and is not concluded by the findings of the Chancellor. The statute regulation does not therefore apply in such cases, because it would be utterly fruitless and lex non cogit ad vana. The statute was intended for cases in which the trial by the Judge supplied the place of a trial by jury, where the parties consent to it; and we have long ago determined that in Chancery cases the parties were not entitled to trial by jury.

         Judgment affirmed.

This case is doubted, Duff v. Fisher , 15 Cal. 375, and affirmed, though disapproved,

Lyons Lyons Still Saunders Bodley Ferguson Sharon Sharon


Summaries of

Walker v. Sedgwick

Supreme Court of California
Apr 1, 1855
5 Cal. 192 (Cal. 1855)
Case details for

Walker v. Sedgwick

Case Details

Full title:Azariah Walker, Appellant, v. Thomas Sedgwick, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Apr 1, 1855

Citations

5 Cal. 192 (Cal. 1855)

Citing Cases

Sharon v. Sharon

But this court, Cope, J., delivering the opinion, said: "This is a suit in equity, and the only error…

Lyons v. Lyons

Act, sec. 180; Russell v. Armador , 2 Cal. 305; Semple v. Burkey, Id. 321.) Walker v. Sedgwick , 5 Cal.…