Legal Opinion

Warner v. Darrow

California Supreme Court

Decided September 21, 1891No. 14179PublishedCited by 28 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, from an order denying a new trial, and from an order denying a motion to retax costs. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtDe Haven, J.

The defendant filed a cross-complaint in the action, in which he asked as affirmative relief that the plaintiff be required to convey to him certain described land. The plaintiff answered. Upon trial of the action, the plaintiff was, upon motion of defendant, nonsuited. The court thereupon proceeded to a trial of the issues made by the cross-complaint and answer thereto, and when the defendant had concluded his evidence in support of his cross-complaint, the court, on motion of plaintiff, granted a nonsuit as to the matters alleged in said cross-complaint. From this judgment the defendant…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Mott v. MottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  2. Donahue v. GallavanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
  3. Miller v. WadeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Domenigoni v. Imperial Live Stock & Mortgage Co.California Supreme Court · 1922
  2. Pacific Finance Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
  3. Goldstone v. Merchants' Ice & Cold Storage Co.California Supreme Court · 1899
  4. Wright v. BrooksMontana Supreme Court · 1913
  5. Archibald Estate v. MattesonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907

23 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