Manning v. App Consol. Gold Mining Co.
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. A. H. Ricketts, and Carter, Ricketts & Dolph, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the CourtLorigan, J.
In this action two separate appeals are taken by defendant, one from the judgment in favor of plaintiff for the sum of five thousand dollars, which is taken on the judgment-roll, the other an appeal from the order denying the motion of defendant for a new trial, which is presented upon a statement of the case.
Upon the appeal from the judgment the only point made is that the complaint fails to show by proper averment that the injury complained of by plaintiff was caused by the negligent act of the defendant. The complaint alleges that the defendant is a corporation, and at the time plaintiff…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Callan v. BullCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Driscoll v. Market Street Cable RailwayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- McKune v. Santa Clara Valley Mill & Lumber Co.California Supreme Court · 1895
- Burns v. Sennett & MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Siemers v. EisenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Phelan v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- Williams v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1916
- Garrison v. PearlsteinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
- Ryan v. Oakland Gas Light & Heat Co.California Court of Appeal · 1909
- Hayes v. Western Fuel Co.California Court of Appeal · 1912
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.