Cockrill v. Hall
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sonoma County, and from an order refusing a new trial. After the jury had retired for deliberation, they returned into court and asked the judge what they should do with the old notes, referred to in the opinion. The court replied: “They are in evidence; you are to determine that, under the instructions which I have given you.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sonoma County, and from an order refusing a new trial. After the jury had retired for deliberation, they returned into court and asked the judge what they should do with the old notes, referred to in the opinion. The court replied: “They are in evidence; you are to determine that, under the instructions which I have given you.” The plaintiff then moved the court to read the particular instructions, touching the matter, to the jury. The court refused to do this, but expressed his willingness to read the whole of the instructions if the jury so…
1Opinion of the Court
Foote, C.
This is an action based upon alleged deceit practiced upon the plaintiff, to her damage, by the defendant, and is brought under the provisions of sections 1709 and 1710 of the Civil Code.
It is alleged in the complaint that the defendant had executed, for value received, a promissory note to the plaintiff, in renewal of another note, and that it was about to become barred by the statute of limitations; that, pretending he wanted to have a calculation made, and renew the note with security thereon for the sum of money due, the defendant got possession of it from the plaintiff, not…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Robinson v. Western Pacific RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874
- Dominguez v. MascottiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- Girdner v. BeswickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
3Cited by3 opinions
- Gray v. EschenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Moore v. MooreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Love v. Anchor Raisin Vineyard Co.California Supreme Court · 1896