Murray v. Tulare Irrigation Co.
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Tulare County. William W. Cross, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion rendered in Department One.
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT.
After consideration of this cause in Bank we are satisfied with the conclusion reached and the opinion delivered in Department. There is no appeal from the judgment; and, as to the questions which could be raised on the appeal from the order denying a motion for a new trial, we do not deem it necessary to add anything to the opinion above referred to. Indeed, the determinative issues in the case were issues of fact which were decided by the court below upon conflicting evidence which clearly warranted the findings which the court made.
For the reasons given in the said former opinion…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Haley v. AmestoyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
- Martin v. LloydCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
3Cited by23 opinions
- Woodbine v. Van HornCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
- Price v. Occidental Life Ins. Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
- Chapman v. HicksCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
- Haight v. HaightCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- McDougall v. McDougallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.