From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nelson v. Lemmon

Supreme Court of California
Jul 1, 1858
10 Cal. 49 (Cal. 1858)


         Appeal from the County Court of Sutter County.


         W. G. Wilkins, for Appellants.

          Rowe & Mott, for Respondent.

         JUDGES: Terry, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Field, J., concurring.


          TERRY, Judge

         In this case appellant assigns as error the refusal of the Court to give certain instructions, but the record contains no statement of the evidence to show that the instructions asked had any relation to the facts proven.

         In White v. Abernethy, (3 Cal. 426,) we held: " All intendments must be in favor of sustaining the judgments of Courts of original jurisdiction, and to disturb such judgment, it is not sufficient that error may have intervened, but it must be affirmatively shown by the record. Therefore, the naked directions of a Court, unaccompanied with any statement of facts, cannot satisfy us of substantial error, although some of the directions may not be in consonance with the rules of law. They may be in reference to the facts, merely abstract, or only detrimental to the party not complaining of error, or totally inapt to mislead the jury."

         This rule applies with much greater force to the refusal of the Court to give instructions.

         Judgment affirmed.

Summaries of

Nelson v. Lemmon

Supreme Court of California
Jul 1, 1858
10 Cal. 49 (Cal. 1858)
Case details for

Nelson v. Lemmon

Case Details

Full title:NELSON v. LEMMON

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Jul 1, 1858


10 Cal. 49 (Cal. 1858)

Citing Cases

People v. Fox

The rule that all intendments are in favor of sustaining the judgment of superior Courts of general…

People ex rel. Baird v. Tilton

This decision is directly in conflict with that of People v. Reid, and, necessarily, overrules it, and it was…