Legal Opinion

Wise v. Wakefield

California Supreme Court

Decided September 10, 1897No. Sac. No. 194PublishedCited by 9 opinions

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Modoc County and from an order denying a new trial. C. L. Claflin, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

BEITT,

1. Plaintiffs sued to recover a balance of eight hundred and thirteen dollars and forty-two cents alleged to be due them upon a mutual and open account with defendant. They obtained a verdict and judgment for the sum of two hundred and eight dollars and six cents only; afterward, their motion for new trial was denied. They urge here that the verdict was not justified by the evidence; but the only specification of insufficiency in that respect contained in the statement on motion for new trial was this: “The evidence was insufficient for the jury to find that plaintiffs were only…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Nightingale v. ScannellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
  2. Helbing v. Svea Ins. Co.California Supreme Court · 1880
  3. Stevens v. IrwinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Scott v. Times-Mirror Co.California Supreme Court · 1919
  2. Norton v. BassettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  3. People v. CoreyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1908
  4. Cameron v. Ah QuongCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
  5. McLaughlin v. Los Angeles Ry. Corp.California Supreme Court · 1919

4 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