Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion · Dissent

In re the Estate of Jessup

California Supreme Court

Decided November 30, 1889No. 12941Published

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice Fox.

1DissentWorks, J.

I cannot concur in the conclusion reached by the majority of the court, nor in the *475reasoning upon which it is founded; and considering the magnitude of the interests involved, and the importance of the .question presented, it is proper that I should give my reasons for this dissent.

The Code of Civil Procedure provides:—

“ Sec. 45. The chief justice, or any four justices, may convene the court in Bank at any time, and the chief justice shall be the presiding justice of the court when so convened. The presence of four justices shall be necessary to transact any business, and the concurrence of…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Sanders v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
  2. People v. WilsonIllinois Supreme Court · 1872
  3. Houston v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
  4. Little v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1883
  5. Batchelder v. MooreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871

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

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API