Skip to main content
· 7/27/1886

Anderson v. Black

Citations

  • 70 Cal. 226
  • 11 P. 700
  • 1886 Cal. LEXIS 771

Syllabus

<p>Findings — Equitable Averments in Complaint—Admissions in Answer—Verdict — Judgment.—In an action to recover the possession of real property, and for an injunction, where a verdict is rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, upon which judgment is entered, no findings are necessary upon the equitable averments of the complaint, if they are not denied by the answer.</p> <p>Mining Claim—Action for Possession—Monuments—Notice—Evidence— Cross-examination. — The action was brought to recover the possession of a certain mining claim. On the trial, a witness for the plaintiffs was asked on cross-examination as to the location of a side-line monument and notice. On his examination in chief, he had not testified as to such matters. Held, that the question was not responsive to the examination in chief, and was properly disallowed.</p> <p>Id.—Sufficiency of Location—Marking Boundaries—Instruction.— In such an action, the question whether the location of the plaintiffs was so distinctly marked on the ground that its boundaries could he readily traced is for the jury; and where there is evidence to that effect, the court should not instruct the jury that the omission to erect a monument at a certain corner of the claim would he fatal to the plaintiffs’ location.</p> <p>Id. — Excessive Location—Validity of cannot be First Questioned on Appeal. —An objection to the validity of the location on the ground of the extent of the claim refused consideration because not taken at the trial.</p> <p>Evidence—Conflict of—Verdict. —Where the evidence is conflicting, a verdict will not be disturbed on the ground that it is not justified thereby.</p> <p>Id.—Evidence Tending to Show III Will of Witness—Rejection of when not Error. — On the trial, one of the plaintiffs, when testifying as a witness in his own behalf, was asked on cross-examination if he had not on a certain night gone with shot-guns upon the premises in controversy, while the defendants were in the peaceable possession thereof, a

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • The exercise of a trial court’s discretion in considering an application for a continuance “will not be disturbed by the appellate courts unless the discretion is manifestly abused.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Foote

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.