Anaheim Union Water Co. v. Parker
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The court erred in instructing the jury that the defendants were liable on the bond for all the moneys collected by their principal, and not turned over to the company prior to the date of the execution of the bond. This would give the bond a retrospective operation which the law does not sanction.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The court erred in instructing the jury that the defendants were liable on the bond for all the moneys collected by their principal, and not turned over to the company prior to the date of the execution of the bond. This would give the bond a retrospective operation which the law does not sanction. (Haley v. Petty, 42 Ark. 392; State v. Churchill, 48 Ark. 426; Coons v. People, 76 111. 383; Stern v. People, 96 111. 475; Potter v. School…
1Opinion of the Court
Paterson, J.—
It would be necessary, if we were to state the facts upon which all the points made by appellant are based, practically to copy the statement on motion for a new trial, as there are ninety-two assignments of error and specifications of insufficiency of the evidence based upon sixty-five pages of the record. With the exception of those hereinafter referred to, they are entirely without merit, although sufficiently plausible as they are stated to entail upon the court a great deal of unnecessary labor in passing upon them.
Briefly stated, this is the case: The defendant, Gardi*486ner,…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Farrar and Brown v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1831
- U. States v. January & PattersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1813
- Myers v. United StatesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Ohio · 1839
- Vivian v. OtisWisconsin Supreme Court · 1869
- Inhabitants of Rochester v. RandallMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Sumitomo Bank of Cal. v. IwasakiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
- People v. Metropolitan Surety Co.California Supreme Court · 1912
- Bartlett v. WheelerIllinois Supreme Court · 1902
- Brillion Lumber Co. v. BarnardWisconsin Supreme Court · 1907
- Williams v. LymanCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1898
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.