Fitz v. Bynum
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment for the defendant, and from an or-. der denying a new trial, in the Sixth District Court, County of Yolo. Denson, J. The question asked the witness McCleery (referred to in the opinion) was as follows : “Question.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment for the defendant, and from an or-. der denying a new trial, in the Sixth District Court, County of Yolo. Denson, J. The question asked the witness McCleery (referred to in the opinion) was as follows : “Question. You have stated that it would not pay to work ore that assayed $40 to $60 per ton, because you have to pay $45 per ton for milling; now, if the company were to put a mill at the mine, say a twenty or forty-stamp mill, and proper machinery—hoisting machinery—upon the mine, could the ore not be worked for much less than $40 per ton ? ” The other facts are stated…
1Opinion of the Court
Myrick, J.:
The jury rendered a verdict for defendant. Plaintiff moved for a new trial, which was denied, and plaintiff appealed.
Whether the stock, the sale of which was the consideration for the notes in suit, was of value, was a matter properly submitted to the jury: as to this issue, the evidence was conflicting; *461therefore the verdict of the jury will not be disturbed. The Court clearly instructed the jury that if the stock had any value, the defendant must have offered to return it, or the plaintiff would be entitled to a verdict. The verdict, therefore, was necessarily based upon the…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Colton v. StanfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Loaiza v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Brown v. NormanMississippi Supreme Court · 1888
- Engeman v. TaylorWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1899
- Upper San Joaquin Irrigating Canal Co. v. RoachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.