Legal Opinion

Morgan v. Hugg

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1855PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Appeal from the Superior Court of the City of San Francisco.

1Opinion of the CourtBryan, J.

Heydenfeldt, J., concurred.

It does not appear from the record in this cause, that the reading, by plaintiff’s counsel in his address to the jury, of any portion of the answer which may have been stricken out, had any tendency to prejudice defendant’s cause.

The mere fact that counsel had read upon trial, a part of the answer which had been stricken out, would not of itself be error in this Court. It might frequently be necessary to read the portion of a pleading, which had been stricken out, just previous to a trial, in order to make sense of that which remained. The appellant could have asked…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Kilburn v. RitchieCalifornia Supreme Court · 1852
  2. Rabe v. Wells & Co.California Supreme Court · 1853
  3. Clayton v. WestCalifornia Supreme Court · 1852

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Grimes v. NicholsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
  2. State v. ZornOregon Supreme Court · 1892
  3. State v. DodsonOregon Supreme Court · 1870
  4. Rubel v. PeckhamCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
  5. Boot v. BoydCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1918

1 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