Winans v. Hardenbergh (1857) · DecisionDepot

Winans v. Hardenbergh

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

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1857Published

Before: Burnett, Terry

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that any error in refusing a motion for non-suit is cured when the defendant subsequently introduces evidence that supplies the deficiencies in the plaintiff's case.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury as in case of non-suit upon the close of the plaintiff's testimony.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“If this were an error, it was cured by the introduction of evidence on the part of defendants, which supplied every omission in plaintiff’s case, and conclusively established his right to recover.”

Synopsis

A failure on the part of a plaintiff to make out his case, and error in the Court in refusing to instruct the jury as in case of nonsuit, can be cured by the testimony of the defence.

Terry, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court—Burnett, J., concurring. The only exception taken by appellant in the Court below, was to the refusal of the Court to instruct the jury, as in case of non-suit, upon the close of the plaintiff’s testimony. If this were an error, it was cured by the introduction of evidence on the part of defendants, which supplied every omission in plaintiff’s case, and conclusively established his right to recover. Smith v. Compton, Jan. T., 1856. The appeal is without merit, and was evidently taken for delay.

Judgment affirmed, with ten per cent, damages, and costs.

Winans v. Hardenbergh

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief