Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

49 Cal. 293

Noonan v. Hood

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1874

California Supreme Court · decided 1874-07-01

John Ledwidge died in the county of Sonoma on the 12th day of December, 1870. He had been in the employ of the defendant for several years as superintendent of a flouring mill. The plaintiff was Public Administrator, and, as such, administered on his estate. He alleged in his complaint an indebtedness of the defendant to the estate in the sum of $10,000; a balance due for goods sold, labor done, and money paid by the intestate for the defendant’s use.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1874-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently November 1922

4 state decisions

10187418801890190019101920decided

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 →

By the Court, Wallace, C. J.:

¶1The appeal is taken front the judgment.

¶21. The point that the evidence is insufficient to justify the judgment is not well taken. The supposed bill of particulars upon which the argument of the appellant upon this point is founded is not contained in the record. The evidence given upon the part of the plaintiff tended to establish an indebtedness, in the first instance, from the defendant to the intestate of the plaintiff of eleven thousand seven hundred and seventy-five dollars. The amount of the offsets to be allowed in favor of the defendant involved a consideration of the credibility of the evidence offered, and the finding of the referee upon the question of fact involved will not be disturbed here.

¶32. The objection that the referee, in making his report, did not state the facts found and conclusions of law separately, is not supported by the record.

¶43. But there is nothing in the record to justify the judgment in gold coin, which the respondent obtained below. The judgment must be modified in that respect, but, inasmuch as no application was made to the Court below for the modification, no costs will be allowed to the appellant upon this appeal.

¶5Cause remanded without costs to the appellant, with directions to modify the judgment in the respect.indicated.

¶6Neither Mr. Justice Rhodes nor Mr. Justice Niles expressed an opinion.

/49/cal/293 · .json · Public domain