Comerford v. Dupuy
Before: Baldwin
Synopsis
The motion in this case to strike out the answers because denying on information and belief, and for judgment on the complaint: Held, to he properly overruled. See facts.
A party cannot recover for injuries done by cattle of defendant breaking into plaintiff’s close, unless the land entered be inclosed by a fence of the character described by statute, or at least by an inclosure equivalent, in its capacity to exclude cattle, to the statutory fence.
Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court Fields, C. J. concurring.
The judgment must be affirmed. The criticism of the answer in this case cannot be maintained ; at least, the defects suggested were not sufficient to sustain the motion to strike out. We cannot interfere with the discretion of the Court in refusing a new trial.
We think a party cannot recover for injuries done by cattle of / defendant breaking into plaintiff’s close, unless the land entered be inclosed by a fence of the character prescribed in the statute, or at least, by an inclosure equivalent to that described in the statute in /its capacity to exclude cattle. (See Pennsylvania cases cited in respondents’ brief.)
Judgment affirmed.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)