Field v. Burr

California Supreme Court Jun 25, 1900 No. L.A. No. 650.Published

Before: SMITH, C.

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment for the intervenor, concluding that the use of the word "plaintiff" instead of "intervenor" in the conclusions of law was a mere inadvertent error that did not warrant reversal.

Issues

Whether an inadvertent misidentification of a party in the conclusions of law constitutes reversible error.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the word "plaintiff" is inadvertently used for "intervenor," which is the ground urged for reversal.”

“We recommend that the judgment be affirmed.”

Appeal from a judgment for intervenor in a suit for the recovery of personal property levied upon by defendant, as sheriff, under attachment in favor of plaintiff against third party.

The findings are unusually full and explicit, but in the conclusions of law the word "plaintiff" is inadvertently used for "intervenor," which is the ground urged for reversal. (Doughertyv. Ward, 89 Cal. 81.)

We recommend that the judgment be affirmed.

Gray, C., and Haynes, C., concurred.

For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the judgment is affirmed.

McFarland, J., Temple, J., Henshaw, J.

*Page 45

Field v. Burr

AI Brief

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief