Headley v. Reed
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Fourth Judicial District. In this case Headley and Cozzens brought suit to recover for goods sold and delivered to the appellant, and for money loaned him. The appellant denies the sale and delivery, as charged; and as to the money avers that it was in payment of an account due him.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Fourth Judicial District. In this case Headley and Cozzens brought suit to recover for goods sold and delivered to the appellant, and for money loaned him. The appellant denies the sale and delivery, as charged; and as to the money avers that it was in payment of an account due him. The parties waived a trial by jury, and the Court found for the plaintiff, $575.25; upon which judgment was entered the 16th day of June, 1851. On the 19th June the judgment was opened, and the defendant allowed to come in and defend, &c.; and afterwards, on the 11th July, 1851, the case was…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Heydeneeldt, Justice.
We decided in Tyson v. Wells and Skinner, that the report of a referee under the statute, had the same legal effect as the award of an arbitrator.
It therefore follows that the referee in this suit had no right to bring in and file an additional or amended report; and the case must be reviewed with reference to the original report alone.
By that report, it does not appear that exceptions of any validity were taken before the referee, but the report was not made immediately after the close of the testimony, and consequently by the…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Moncharsh v. Heily & BlaseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
- Utah Construction Co. v. Western Pacific Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1916
- Lesser Towers, Inc. v. Roscoe-Ajax Construction Co.California Court of Appeal · 1969
- In Re RiccardiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926
- United States v. RamseyU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Idaho · 1907
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.