San Francisco & San Jose Railroad v. Mahoney
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Twelfth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. Plaintiff appealed from the judgment and from an order denying a new trial. The other facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Shafter, J.
The objection made by the respondent that no appeal lies from the judgment in a proceeding to condemn lands to the use of a corporation, or from an order granting or refusing a new trial, is not well taken. The point was passed upon directly in Sacramento, Placer and Nevada Railroad Company v. Harlan, 24 Cal. 334.
It is suggested, rather than urged, that the doctrine of that case is irreconcilable with Dorsey v. Barry, 24 Cal. 449; but the distinction between the two cases is apparent. The Act regulating the trial of contested elections not only provides a special mode…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- People ex rel. McCauley & Tevis v. BrooksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- McCauley v. WellerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
- Spring Valley Water Works v. San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
- Bensley v. Mountain Lake Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1859
- Dorsey v. Barry.California Supreme Court · 1864
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- San Diego Land & Town Co. v. NealeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Rabb v. La Feria Mutual Canal Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1910
- Orleans-Kenner Electric Ry. Co. v. Metairie Ridge Nursery Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1915
- Davidson v. Texas & New Orleans Railway Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1902
- Fox v. Western Pac. R.R.California Supreme Court · 1867
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.