Rider v. Edgar
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment for plaintiffs, and ° from an order denying a new trial, in the Twelfth District Court, City and County of San Francisco. Dairgerfield, J. Action for damages for the taking of certain sacks of oats. The plaintiffs claimed as mortgagees of the property in question, under a chattel mortgage of the ’ growing crop, which authorized them to take posséssion at any time, and to harvest and sell the same.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment for plaintiffs, and ° from an order denying a new trial, in the Twelfth District Court, City and County of San Francisco. Dairgerfield, J. Action for damages for the taking of certain sacks of oats. The plaintiffs claimed as mortgagees of the property in question, under a chattel mortgage of the ’ growing crop, which authorized them to take posséssion at any time, and to harvest and sell the same. The defendant was Sheriff of San Mateo County, and justified under writs of attachment in his hands against the mortgagors. The taking was admitted; but the answer avers,…
1Opinion of the Court
Department No. 1, by the Court (from the Bench):
As the case is presented in the transcript, the questions argued by appellant cannot be considered.
It is the established rule that exceptions to the oral charge of the Court below must be specific, and point to the particular portions of the charge claimed to be objectionable. (Sill v. Reese, 47 Cal. 295, and cases there cited.) The rule is equally applicable where, as in this case, counsel shall subsequently claim that all the propositions laid down in- the charge are objectionable. This rule is one of practice, which must apply without…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Cavallaro v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1895
- Keel v. LevyOregon Supreme Court · 1890
- Irwin v. McDowellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Close v. HodgesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
- Sousa v. LucasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.