Tinney v. Endicott (1855) · DecisionDepot

Tinney v. Endicott

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

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1855Published

Before: Heydenfeldt

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court erred in refusing to give a requested jury instruction based on a procedural rule that was inapplicable because the case was submitted without argument.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in refusing a requested jury instruction based on a procedural rule requiring instructions to be submitted before the close of argument.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The third instruction asked for by defendant’s counsel, ought to have been given.”

“it appears by the statement that the cause was submitted without argument, so that there was no room for the operation of the rule.”

Synopsis

A rulo oí Court requiring counsel to file and submit to the Court any instructions they may offer before the argument is closed, to the jury, docs not operate where the cause is submitted without argument.

Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Murray, C. J., concurred.

The third instruction asked for by defendant’s counsel, ought to have been given. The reason given for the refusal is, that a rule of the

[103]Court requires counsel “to file and submit to the Court any instructions they may offer, before the argument is closed, to the jury.” But it appears by the statement that the cause was submitted without argument, so that there was no room for the operation of the rule.

For this error the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Tinney v. Endicott

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief