Heinlen v. Beans (1886) · DecisionDepot

Heinlen v. Beans

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

California Supreme Court Nov 23, 1886 No. No. 8969Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment and orders, ruling that because the plaintiff was not entitled to recover anything from the defendants in a related case, he suffered no harm from the denial of interest on his judgment.

Issues

Whether the plaintiff was entitled to legal interest on a five-thousand-dollar judgment from the date he took possession of the land in question.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Inasmuch as we have held in case 9121 that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover anything of defendants, he was not hurt by the ruling of the lower court adverse to his claim of interest, and there was no error in the court’s so ruling.”

Synopsis

Interest—Judgment.—Where, in an Action on an Undertaking on Appeal, given to secure rents and profits of certain real estate pending an appeal to the supreme court of California, under Code of Civil Procedure, section 945, if tie judgment is affirmed, but not as rendered by the court below, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover anything of defendants, and therefore a ruling of the lower court adverse to his claim of interest, in this action on the judgment appealed from, is not erroneous.

By the COURT. This is an appeal by plaintiff from the judgment and certain orders in the case with the same title (No. 9121) : 71 Cal. 295, 12 Pac. 167. The court below rendered judgment herein in favor of plaintiff for the sum of five thousand dollars. The plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to legal interest on this sum from the 5th of April, 1879, the day on which possession of the land involved in the suit of Heinlen v. Martin and Rogers was delivered to him. The court held against him on this contention, and this appeal was prosecuted, to have it determined whether he was so entitled or not.

Inasmuch as we have held in case 9121 that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover anything of defendants, he was not hurt by the ruling of the lower court adverse to his claim of interest, and there was no error in the court’s so ruling. The same contention is presented on the orders appealed from, and the same conclusion follows.

[720]As regards the above-mentioned appeals of plaintiff, the judgment and orders are without error, and are affirmed ; but, on the return of this cause to the court below, that court will enter judgment as directed in case 9121.

Heinlen v. Beans

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief