Primm v. Gray (1858) · DecisionDepot

Primm v. Gray

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

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1858Published

Before: Terry

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that a plea in abatement based on a prior pending action requires proof that process was issued in that action.

Issues

Whether the record supports the assignments of error.
Whether a plea in abatement based on the pendency of a prior action requires proof that process was issued.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Upon the whole, it appears that the appeal was taken merely for delay, and the judgment is affirmed, with ten per cent, damages.”

Synopsis

To support a plea in abatement founded on the pendency of a prior action, it is necessary to show that process was issued in such action.*

Terry, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court Field, J., and Baldwin, J., concurring.

The first and second assignments of error are not supported by the record.

The third is not well taken. To support a plea in abatement [523]founded on the pendency of a prior action, it is necessary to show that process was issued in such action. (See Weaver v. Conger, 10 Cal.)

The fourth is not supported by the record. Upon the whole, it appears that the appeal was taken merely for delay, and the judgment is affirmed, with ten per cent, damages.

Primm v. Gray

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief