Skip to main content
· 5/28/1889

Mitchell v. Hawley

Citations

  • 79 Cal. 301
  • 21 P. 833
  • 1889 Cal. LEXIS 724

Syllabus

<p>Injunction Bond in Federal Court—Suit in State Court — Damages — Counsel Fees.—An injunction bond given in a federal court cannot be held to have been signed with the understanding that suit would be brought thereon in a federal court, and that counsel fees would not be recovered as damages, because not allowed as such in the federal courts; nor is an action on such bond in the state court subject to the rule that counsel fees can in no instance be recovered as damages.</p> <p>Id.—Counsel Fees when not Allowed.—In a suit on an injunction bond in a case where a gross counsel fee was paid for the defense of a suit, and no separate or distinct amount of money was paid to the attorneys for an unsuccessful attempt to procure a dissolution of the injunction, and no special charge was made therefor, and there is no sufficient showing in the evidence of a segregation and apportionment of the services, no counsel fee can he allowed as damages, though the court finally decided by dismissal of the action that the plaintiff was not entitled to an injunction. The allowance of counsel fees as damages is exceptional, and should not he carried beyond the point to which former decisions have taken it.</p>

How courts have described this case

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

  • finding no Edge violation based on, inter alia, construction of jury instructions together with verdict form
  • jury clearly understood it could consider voluntary manslaughter as an alternative to murder charges
  • “mere fact that assailants are departing and could, theoretically, return and continue an assault does not mean that the person asserting justification is in imminent danger. [Cit.]”
  • “mere fact that assailants are departing and could, theoretically, return and continue an assault does not mean that the person asserting justification is in imminent danger. [Cit.]”
  • jury clearly understood it could consider voluntary manslaughter as an alternative to murder charges
  • “Justification cannot be based on an assault which has ended[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: McFarland

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.