Mateer v. Brown
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the district court of the fourth judicial district. The action was brought to recover $5500 worth of gold dost, claimed to have been lost in the inn of the defendant, while the plaintiff was staying there as a guest. All the important facts of the case will be found in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Bennett, J.
It was decided, at the last term, in the case of Minggold v. Haven & Livingston, that the power of compulsory nonsuit exists. "We.-think the rule convenient, reasonable, and well supported by authority, and we shall adhere to it. On the trial of this cause, after the plaintiff had closed his evidence, the defendant moved for a nonsuit, “ on the *222“ ground that the plaintiff had not proved by competent testi- “ mony the loss of any property of definite value.” This being the only position taken in support of the motion, unless that be tenable, the nonsuit was properly…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Stuart v. SimpsonNew York Supreme Court · 1828
3Cited by28 opinions
- Pinkerton v. WoodwardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- Gardner v. Jonathan ClubCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- Herbert v. DufurOregon Supreme Court · 1893
- Pacific Livestock Co. v. GentryOregon Supreme Court · 1900
- Taylor v. Forte Hotels InternationalCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.