Harris v. San Francisco Sugar Refining Co.
Before: Temple
Synopsis
Practice in Law and Equity.—The mode of reviewing the action of the Court upon an issue of fact is the same, whether the case, is at law or in equity.
Be view or Question or Pact.—In order to review a question of fact, there must be a motion for a new trial.
Review ob Action ob Rebbree. — If a referee tries a question of fact raised by the pleadings, the Court cannot review his action on such issues, unless a motion is made for a new trial.
Idem.—If a referee tries a collateral question, not made an issue of fact by the pleadings, his action thereon may be reviewed by the Court, by exceptions to the report, without a motion for a new trial, and his report is not binding on the Court until adopted by it.
Question Discussed.—Is not the manner of bringing the testimony before the Court in case of such exceptions to be regulated by rules to be adopted by the Court?
Report ob Reberee on a Collateral Question. — When a collateral question, not made an issue by the pleadings, is referred to a referee, his finding of the facts does not take the place of a special verdict, as provided in section one hundred and eighty-seven of the code, and is not binding on the Court until adopted by it.
Report ob Reberee.—When a referee reports his decision upon th^ whole case, his report stands as the decision of the Court; when he reports the facts only, his report is a special verdict.
Notice ob Motion bor New Trial.—If, in an action to obtain the specific performance of a contract, and to have an account taken, the principles upon which the account is to be taken are not raised, as issues in the pleadings, but an issue is made only on the plaintiff’s right to have the account taken, and the Court enters an interlocutory judgment, that the plaintiff is entitled to a specific performance, and to have an account taken, and orders a reference to take the account on principles fixed in the order, a notice of motion for a new trial need not be given until ten days after the confirmation of the report of the referee.
A Final Judgment.—The confirmation of the report of a referee, and an order that judgment be entered for the plaintiff, without annunciation of judgment upon the facts found, and a determination of the particular relief to which the plaintiff is entitled, is not the rendition of the judgment from which an appeal may be taken.
Undivided Probits ob a Corporation.—In an action against a corporation and the officers controlling the same, to compel the specific performance of a contract to issue a portion of the stock to the plaintiff, and for an account of the dividends and profits on the stock, it is erroneous to give the plaintiff his share of the stock, and also the same proportion of the undivided profits of the company.
By the Court, Temple, J.: This is a bill to obtain specific performance of a contract between Chater, Bond, and Gordon, whereby they agreed to incorporate for the business of refining sugar in San Francisco, with a nominal capital of one hundred thousand dollars, divided into one thousand shares. Each party was to take three hundred and thirty-three and one third shares, and pay twelve thousand five hundred dollars. Chater, having no means, was to give his notes for the amount, drawing interest at two per cent per month, and Gordon and Bond were to receive his stock as collateral, and thereupon raise or advance his share. The dividends on Chafer’s stock were to be applied to paying the interest and principal on his notes." The plaintiff asks a decree for one third of the stock, and the profits and dividends upon the stock.
An interlocutory decree was entered, adjudging that Chater was entitled to recover one third of the stock, and all [403]“ duplications,' increase, profits, and dividends made or accrued upon said one third since the organization of said company.” That the plaintiff should pay twelve thousand five hundred dollars, with interest at two per cent per month, from the 1st day of September, 1856, and that an account be taken between Chater and the company, to ascertain the balance which might be due to either, and, thereupon, a referee was appointed “ to take the account of the profits, increase, and dividends of said stock belonging to plaintiff under his decree, and to state an account between the San Francisco Sugar Eefining Company and plaintiff.”
And it is further ordered that all further “ directions be reserved until after said referee makes his report, when either party is at liberty to apply to the Court, as occasion may require.”
The referee filed his report Hovember 3d, 1864, which he stated on account, and ascertained a balance due plaintiff" of eight thousand seven hundred and eighty-five dollars and fifty cents. Ho motion for a new trial was made upon the filing of this report, but within ten days after notice of the filing the defendants filed exceptions to the report, and on the nineteenth of December following obtained an order requiring the referee to file a statement of the evidence before him. . This additional report was filed July 1st, 1865. On the 21st of August, 1865, the exceptions to the report were overruled and the report confirmed. On the thirty-first of the same month notice of motion for a new trial was given. Upon this motion a statement was prepared and filed, and the motion denied on the 8th of February, 1868. An appeal was taken from this order, and is the first appeal in this case.
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)