Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

Salmon, Gates v...
Sanchez v. Loureyro.
San Diego v. Allison.
San Francisco v. Eaton...
S. P. & HI. B. R. R. Co., Bee v.
San Mateo County, McMahon v.
Santa Barbara L. S. & F. Co. v. Thompson.
Savings & L. Society v. Austin...
Sawtelle, Woods v.
Sawyer, Goldsmith v.
Schroeder, Estate of.
Shafer, Polack v.
Sharkey, Kusel v.
Shelton, Hildreth v.
Sherman v. Mitchell
Shipley, Pitte v...
Southwell, People v.
Springer v. Green...
Stanislaus B. Co. v. Horsley.
Steiger, Whitman v.....
Stokes v. Geddes...
Stone v. Lumpus.
Story, Bucknall v.
Strang v. Ryan..
Strong, l'coplo v.
Swift v. Swift..

361 641 162 100 248 214

63 415 389 209 304 270

3 382 576 154 141

73 108 256

17 218 589

33 302 266

Thom, Hancock v..
T:ompson, Santa Barbara L. S. & F. Co. v.
Thorne v. IIammond..

643

63 530 637 389 637

Treadwell v. Holloway.
Tully, Meyer v....

PAGE 547 70

Van Landigham, Goodrich v.....
Van Vacter v. Walkup..
Voight, Voorman v.
Voorman v. Voight...

601 124 392 392

Wade, Bernal v...
Wade, Bernal v.
Walkup, Van Vactor v.
White v. Cox..
White, Johnson v..
Whitman v. Steiger.
Whitmore v. Reynolds.
Wilkins v. McCue....
Williams v. Corcoran.
Wood v. Wrede...
Woods v. Sawtelle.
Wrede, Wood v.

640 663 124 169 328 256 380 656

553

[merged small][ocr errors]

REPORTS OF CASES

DETERMINED IN

THE SUPREME COURT,

APRIL TERM, 1873.

[No. 3,463.] S. A. KUSEL v. WILLIAM SHARKEY. STATEMENT ON MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL. - A statement on motion for a

new trial must contain the specifications particularly pointing out wherein the judgment is not warranted by the evidence, or wherein the facts found are contrary to the evidence, or what the errors in law were,

if the new trial is asked on said grounds, or it will be disregarded. IMPLIED FINDINGS OF Fact.-If the facts found are silent upon some mate

rial issue, the law implies that the Court found upon that issue in such

a way as to support the judgment. Facts INSUFFICIENT TO SHOW TRESPASS. -In replevin for hogs distrained

under the Act of March 26th, 1857, the Court found that the “defendant had caught the said hogs in traps on his land, and had hauled them in wagons to the pen,” and that certain persons selected by the Constable, without notice to the plaintiff and in his absence, and who were not . sworn nor acting on the testimony of sworn witnesses, appraised the damages “committed by said hogs in destroying fifteen acres of grain which defendant claimed was destroyed by said hogs:" Ileld, that such facts do not tend to prove the trespass.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Second Judicial District, County of Butte.

« AnteriorContinuar »