Fairbanks v. Woodhouse (1856) · DecisionDepot

Fairbanks v. Woodhouse

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

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1856Published

Before: Heydenfeldt

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that it is improper to submit questions of law, such as the construction of mining laws or the determination of court jurisdiction, to a jury.

Issues

Whether the construction of mining laws is a question of law for the court or a question of fact for the jury.
Whether the question of the court's jurisdiction should be submitted to the jury when not raised by the pleadings.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Mining laws, when introduced in evidence, are to be construed by the Court, and the question whether by virtue of such laws a forfeiture had accrued, is a question of law.”

“There was no issue, under the pleadings, which involved the question of the jurisdiction of the Court, and that question ought, therefore, not to have been left to the jury.”

Synopsis

Mining laws, when introduced in evidence, are to be construed by the Court, and the question whether by virtue of such laws a forfeiture had accrued, is a question of law, and cannot, therefore, be properly submitted to a jury.

Where no question of jurisdiction is raised by the pleadings, it is error to instruct the jury “ that if they believe a certain fact, they must find for the defendant, as the existence of that fact will establish a want of jurisdiction over the casebecause as the pleadings stand, such a verdict is a complete ‘bar to another action, to which the plaintiff is entitled in another Court, if the verdict against him was rendered in pursuance of such an instruction.

Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt delivered the opinion of the Court. Mr. Chief Justice Murray and Mr. Justice Terry concurred.

The first charge to the jury, given by the Court, was clearly erroneous. Mining laws, when introduced in evidence, are to be construed by the Court, and the question whether by virtue of such laws a forfeiture had accrued, is a question of law. It was, therefore, improper to submit it to the determination of the jury.

The third instruction asked by the defendants was also improperly allowed. There was no issue, under the pleadings, which involved the question of the jurisdiction of the Court, and that question ought, therefore, not to have been left to the jury. As the pleadings stand, the verdict would operate as a complete bar to any subsequent action by the plaintiff; whereas if, upon proper pleadings, the finding against him was the result of want of jurisdiction in the justice of the peace, he would still have his right of action in the District Court.

For these reasons the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Fairbanks v. Woodhouse

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief