From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brown v. Casey

Supreme Court of California
Sep 12, 1889
80 Cal. 504 (Cal. 1889)


         Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Joaquin County, and from an order refusing a new trial.


         L. W. Elliott, for Appellant.

          J. C. Campbell, for Respondent.

         JUDGES: In Bank. Works, J. McFarland, J., Sharpstein, J., Paterson, J., and Thornton, J., concurred.


          WORKS, Judge

         This is an action to quiet title. The court found, fully, the claim of title under which both of the parties claimed to own the property, which clearly showed that the plaintiff was the owner thereof, and that the defendant had no title thereto.

         The appellant assigns as error that the court permitted a witness to testify that a certain instrument, purporting to be a deed, was in fact a mortgage. The bill of exceptions does not contain all of the evidence, or purport to do so; therefore, conceding that the question asked called for a conclusion of the witness, or was otherwise improper in form, we cannot say that this error was injurious to the appellant, or such as should reverse the judgment.

         There is nothing in the findings to show an estoppel as against the respondent or his grantors. The findings covered the issues raised or attempted to be raised by the cross-complaint of the defendant.

         Judgment and order affirmed.

Summaries of

Brown v. Casey

Supreme Court of California
Sep 12, 1889
80 Cal. 504 (Cal. 1889)
Case details for

Brown v. Casey

Case Details

Full title:E. H. BROWN, Respondent, v. MAURICE CASEY, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Sep 12, 1889


80 Cal. 504 (Cal. 1889)
22 P. 257

Citing Cases

Williamson v. Superior Court

The inevitable effect of the trial court's order would be to condone defendants' concealment of evidence, in…

Polkinghorn v. Riverside Portland Cement Co.

Appellant first assigns as error rulings of the court made respecting the admission of testimony.…