Casement v. Ringgold
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Twelfth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Sawyer, J.
When this cause was called for trial in the Court below, plaintiff’s counsel was absent, and defendants’ counsel' insisted upon proceeding with the case. A trial having been had in the absence of the plaintiff, the Court found the facts and rendered judgment in favor of defendants. The Court soon after, on the same day, adjourned for the term. Within a few days, but not till after the adjournment of the term, the plaintiff’s counsel filed affidavits showing, among other things, that the plaintiff was at the time of the trial absent from the State, and that her counsel,…
Also in this document: Dissent.
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Castro v. RichardsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
- Bell v. ThompsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862
- Morrison v. DapmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1853
- Carpentier v. HartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1855
- Swain v. NagleeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Matter of the Estate Op Bernard NewManCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Kaufman v. ShainCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- In re the Estate of CookCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Brackett v. BanegasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Genella v. RelyeaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.