Legal Opinion

Cahill v. Murphy

California Supreme Court

Decided March 26, 1892No. 14047PublishedCited by 11 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Humboldt County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Fitzgerald, C.

This is an action for slander. The complaint alleges, in substance, that on or about the twenty-first day of September, 1889, and for a long time prior thereto, plaintiff, with her children, occupied certain rooms in a hotel of which the defendant was owner and proprietor; that one of these rooms was situated on the ground-floor of the hotel, and used by her for the purpose of carrying on and conducting a general merchandising business; that on said last-mentioned date, the soot in the chimney leading from the room used as a store became ignited, causing an alarm of fire to be…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. People v. FickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Dixon v. AllenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
  3. Rhodes v. NagleeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Scott v. Times-Mirror Co.California Supreme Court · 1919
  2. Tingley v. Times Mirror Co.California Supreme Court · 1907
  3. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. ThompsonTexas Supreme Court · 1908
  4. Stevens v. SnowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  5. Bishop v. . New York Times Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1922

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API