Brown v. Brown (1853) · DecisionDepot

Brown v. Brown

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Apr 15, 1853Published

Before: Murray

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a trial court sitting as a jury must separately find the facts and conclusions of law, though this requirement does not apply to default judgments.

Issues

Whether a court sitting as a jury must separately find facts and conclusions of law.

Disposition. Reversed in part and affirmed in part.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the court below, sitting as a jury, must find separately the facts and conclusions of law.”

“This rule, however, is not intended to apply to judgments by default.”

Synopsis

The court below, sitting as a jury, must find separately the facts and conclusions of law. A verdict insufficient in this particular will be reversed.

But this rule does not apply to a judgment by default against one defendant, where there are two, and the other goes on to trial.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Murray, Chief Justice. This cause comes within the rule laid down by us in Russel v. Armador,* in which we decided that the court below, sitting as a jury, must find separately the facts and conclusions of law. The verdict of the court in the present case is insufficient. This rule, however, is not intended to apply to judgments by default.

Judgment reversed as to Groves, and new trial ordered; judgment as to Brown affirmed; costs to abide the event.

See 2d California Reports, 305.

Brown v. Brown

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief