Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

5 Cal. 102

Tinney v. Endicott

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1855

California Supreme Court · decided 1855-07-01

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the Tenth Judicial District, Nevada County.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently July 1867

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1855-07-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

¶1Murray, C. J., concurred.

¶2The third instruction asked for by defendant’s counsel, ought to have been given. The reason given for the refusal is, that a rule of the

¶3*103Court requires counsel “to file and submit to the Court any instructions they may offer, before the argument is closed, to the jury.” But it appears by the statement that the cause was submitted without argument, so that there was no room for the operation of the rule.

¶4For this error the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

/5/cal/102 · .json · Public domain