Martin v. Travers

Decided January 15, 1859

California Supreme Court · decided 1859-01-15

This was an action brought to recover back money deposited by the plaintiff with the defendant, as an indemnity for liability on a bail bond for the appearance of the plaintiff.

Relies on Jackson ex dem. Saunders v. Cadwell · Kiler v. Kimbal · Whiteside v. Jackson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1859-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently March 1935

12 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Field, J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court—Baldwin, J., concurring.

¶2The plaintiff objected to the admission of the evidence upon which the referee based his sixth finding, but upon what ground the record does not disclose. The objection fails to specify the point upon which it rests, and did not merit consideration for its generality. Kiler v. Kimball, 10 Cal. 267.

¶3To have entitled it to notice, the party should have laid, as the authorities say, his finger on the point at the time. Practice Act, sec. 189 ; Frier v. Jackson, 8 John. 496 ; Jackson v. Caldwell, 1 Cow. 622; Whitesides v. Jackson, 1 Wend. 418; Waters v. Gilbert, 2 Cushing, 27; Covillaud v. Tanner, 7 Cal. 38.

¶4Judgment affirmed.