Hoagland v. Clary
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Eleventh Judicial District, Yuba County. This case came before the District Court, by appeal from the County Court of Yuba County. When the cause came on to be heard before the District Court, the defendant moved to dismiss the appeal, for the reason, that there was no statement filed, as required by law. There were other reasons assigned, but the one above mentioned, was the only one considered by the Supreme Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Eleventh Judicial District, Yuba County. This case came before the District Court, by appeal from the County Court of Yuba County. When the cause came on to be heard before the District Court, the defendant moved to dismiss the appeal, for the reason, that there was no statement filed, as required by law. There were other reasons assigned, but the one above mentioned, was the only one considered by the Supreme Court. The appellant produced, in answer to the motion, the statement of the case made out and settled by the presiding Judge of the County Court of Yuba county, and…
1Opinion of the CourtHeydemeldt, Justice
We have before decided in Russell v. Amador, that where a case is tried by the Judge alone, the record must disclose a finding by him of the facts, and a statement of his conclusions of law. And without such finding and statement, there was no basis for the judgment to be supported. The District Court therefore erred in affirming the judgment of the County Court. The judgment of the District Court is therefore reversed, and judgment is here rendered, reversing the judgment of the County Court, and remanding the case for a new trial. Costs to abide the event of the suit.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Briggs v. EgganSupreme Court of Kansas · 1877
- Chrisman v. RogersSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1875