Bernard v. Heynemann (1883) · DecisionDepot

Bernard v. Heynemann

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

California Supreme Court Mar 28, 1883 No. No. 7925Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the jury's resolution of conflicting testimony on factual questions is final and that the plaintiff was not estopped from maintaining the action by a prior suit against a different entity.

Issues

Whether the jury's verdict based on conflicting testimony should be upheld.
Whether publication of the declaration to carry on business as a sole trader was essential under the act of April 12, 1852.
Whether a prior action against Heynemann & Co. estopped the plaintiff from maintaining the current action.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The questions upon which this case turned were questions of fact.”

“Under the act of April 12, 1852, publication of the declaration to carry on business as sole trader was not essential”

“Plaintiff was not estopped by the action against Heynemann & Co. from maintaining this action; it did not constitute a bar.”

Synopsis

Trial—Conflicting Evidence—Jury to Judge Credibility.—On a question solely of fact in a case where the testimony is conflicting the jury is to be allowed to choose whom it will believe.

Sole Traders—Declaration—Publication of.—The act of April 12, 1872, did not make it essential to publish the declaration to carry on businees as a sole trader.

By the COURT. The questions upon which this case turned were questions of fact. The testimony given by the plaintiff conflicted with that given by the defendant, and the jury saw fit to accept and base their verdict upon that of the plaintiff.

Under the act of April 12, 1852, publication of the declaration to carry on business as sole trader was not essential: Reading v. Mullen, 31 Cal. 104.

Plaintiff was not estopped by the action against Heynemann & Co. from maintaining this action; it did not constitute a bar.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Bernard v. Heynemann

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief