Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

5 Cal. 192

Walker v. Sedgwick

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1855

California Supreme Court · decided 1855-07-01

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, County of San Joaquin.</p> <p>The point in controversy is distinctly stated in the opinion of the Court.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1855-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently September 1929

4 state decisions

2018551860187018801890190019101920decided

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 →

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

¶1Bryan, J., concurred.

¶2The parties agree by stipulation to submit this case upon the single point, that the Judge below failed to find the facts and conclusions of law.

¶3This is a case in Chancery to enforce a vender’s lien for the purchase money. In Chancery cases this Court has to examine the facts, and is not concluded by the findings of the Chancellor. The statute regulation does not therefore apply in such cases, because it would be utterly fruitless and lex non cogit ad vana. The statute was intended for cases in which the trial by the Judge supplied the place of a trial by jury, where the parties consent to it; and we have long ago determined that in Chancery cases the parties were not entitled to trial by jury.

¶4Judgment affirmed.

/5/cal/192 · .json · Public domain