TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Shay v. Tuolumne Cty. Water Co.

SHAY v. THE TUOLUMNE COUNTY WATER COMPANY

Shay v. Tuolumne Cty. Water Co., 6 Cal. 73 (1856)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1856
Judges
Murray
Citations
6 Cal. 73
Syllabus
An incorporated company is not bound by the acts or admissions of its members, unless acting by its express authority.
Summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, County of Tuolumne. The plaintiffs brought their action for damages for trespass on a mining claim. The jury found a verdict for plaintiffs for $500. The defendants moved for a new trial on the ground, among others, of error in law occurring at the trial and excepted to by defendants, which appears in the opinion of the Court. The motion was granted, and plaintiffs appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Murray

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Mr. Chief Justice Murray delivered the opinion of the Court.

Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt and Mr. Justice Terry concurred.

This is an appeal from an order of the Court below granting a new trial.

*74 The suit was brought to recover damages of the company, for flooding the plaintiffs’ claim with water. On the trial of the cause, the Court permitted the plaintiffs to ask one of their witnesses whether individual members of the company had employed him to drive them out of their claims.

This was error; the company was an incorporation and was not bound by the acts or admissions of its members, unless they were acting by its express authority. It is said that this interrogatory was answered in the negative, so that no harm could possibly arise tó the defendants from the question. The record does not contain the answer, and it is but justice to presume that the Court below in view of the whole case, has properly exercised its discretion.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1877–1878: 21885–1886: 11959–1960: 118772026peak 1877 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Levins v. Rovegno12 P. 161 (Cal. 1886)
  2. United Grocers, Ltd. v. United States186 F. Supp. 724 (N.D. Cal. 1960)
  3. Howell v. Bush54 Miss. 437 (1877)
  4. Smith ex rel. Smith v. Shrieves13 Nev. 303 (1878)

Most recent

  1. United Grocers, Ltd. v. United States186 F. Supp. 724 (N.D. Cal. 1960)
  2. Levins v. Rovegno12 P. 161 (Cal. 1886)
  3. Smith ex rel. Smith v. Shrieves13 Nev. 303 (1878)
  4. Howell v. Bush54 Miss. 437 (1877)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list