Pico v. Stevens (1861) · DecisionDepot

Pico v. Stevens

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

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1861Published

Before: Cope

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a trial judge's instruction regarding a matter of fact does not warrant reversal if the evidence supports no other conclusion, and that a plaintiff is entitled to interest on a valid claim against an estate from the time of demand.

Issues

Whether a jury instruction regarding a matter of fact constitutes reversible error when the evidence supports no other conclusion.
Whether a plaintiff is entitled to interest on a claim against an estate from the time of its presentation.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“we have also held that where no other conclusion could be arrived at upon the evidence, the error will not be sufficient to justify a reversal.”

“The plaintiff was entitled to interest from the time of the presentation of his demand.”

Synopsis

Where, in suit for the value of horses alleged to have been purchased by B., it was proven, among other things, that the horses were purchased for the use of the Overland Mail Bine, and the Court instructed the jury that, under the evidence, B. was to be considered the sole proprietor of that line : Held, that the instruction was wrong, because violating the constitutional provision prohibiting Judges from charging juries with respect to matters of fact; but, held further, that as no other conclusion could be arrived at from the evidence, the error could not have prejudiced defendant, and, therefore, is not ground of reversal.

Where an administrator rejects a legal claim against the estate, and the claimant afterwards sues and recovers judgment therefor, he is entitled to interest from the time of presenting his claim to the administrator.

Cope, J. delivered the opinion of the Court Field, C. J. concurring.

This is an action to recover of the defendant, as administrator of the estate of James E. Birch, deceased, the value of certain horses and mules which, it is claimed, were purchased by the latter. It was proved at the trial that the animals were purchased for the use of the Overland Mail Line; and the Court instructed the jury that, under the evidence, Birch was to he considered the sole [378]proprietor of that line. We have repeatedly held that an instruction of this character is in violation of the constitutional provision prohibiting Judges from charging juries with respect to matters .of fact; but we have also held that where no other conclusion could be arrived at upon the evidence, the error will not be sufficient to justify a reversal. (Terry v. Sickles, 13 Cal. 427 ; Caulfield v. Sanders, 17 Cal. 569.) There is no evidence in this case adverse to the correctness of the instruction in point of fact, and the error committed could not have operated to the prejudice of the defendant.

The plaintiff was entitled to interest from the time of the presentation of his demand. The claim was a legal and valid% charge upon the estate, and when presented, the defendant should have indorsed upon it his allowance. He could not, by refusing to do so, deprive the plaintiff of his right to interest; and a subsequent recovery by the latter must be regarded as tantamount to an allowance at the time. There is nothing in the other points made.

Judgment affirmed.

Pico v. Stevens

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief