Baggs v. Smith
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Twentieth Judicial District, San Benito County. The action was brought to recover a fee of one thousand two hundred dollars for professional services as attorneys. The answer denied the indebtedness, alleged a special contract, under which the plaintiffs were employed at a per diem, and set up a counter-claim for money lent. The plaintiffs in their reply denied all these allegations.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Twentieth Judicial District, San Benito County. The action was brought to recover a fee of one thousand two hundred dollars for professional services as attorneys. The answer denied the indebtedness, alleged a special contract, under which the plaintiffs were employed at a per diem, and set up a counter-claim for money lent. The plaintiffs in their reply denied all these allegations. The findings were as follows: “Fihdihgs.—This cause was, by consent of both parties, tried before the Court without a jury. From the testimony adduced, I find the facts as…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court :
The findings filed June 4th, 1877, are insufficient to support the judgment entered on that day, in that they did not respond to the issue joined upon the counter-claim of the defendant for the alleged loan of moneys to the plaintiffs. It is the settled rule that the material issues made by the pleadings must be responded to by the findings.
The order of August 6th, 1877, amending the findings, was *90also erroneous, if for no other, for the reason that the cause was then pending in this Court upon appeal from the judgment, and under such circumstances the Court below had no…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Knight v. RocheCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Egbert v. St. Louis S. F. R. Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
- Hayes v. WetherbeeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
- People v. CenterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Jump v. BarrCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.