TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Dougherty v. Ward

JOHN DOUGHERTY v. HUBERT WARD

Dougherty v. Ward, 26 P. 638 (Cal. 1890)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 16, 1890
Docket
No. 13392
Judges
McFarland
Citations
26 P. 63889 Cal. 811890 Cal. LEXIS 1085
Syllabus
Construction or Findings — Frivolous Appeal — Damages.— A finding “ that plaintiff is entitled to judgment that plaintiff take nothing by this action,” but that defendants “have judgment against plaintiff for their costs herein,” clearly expresses the meaning that plaintiff should take nothing, and that defendants should have judgment against him; and where the only point made on appeal is that the findings do not support the judgment, because the court finds as a conclusion of law “ that plaintiff is entitled to judgment,” while judgment is rendered for the defendants, the judgment will be affirmed, with damages.
Summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of. the city and county of San Francisco. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

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

Opinion of the Court — McFarland

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

McFarland, J.—

Plaintiff appeals; and the only point made by him is, that the findings do not support the judgment, because, as appellant contends, the court finds as a conclusion of law “ that plaintiff is entitled to' judgment,” while judgment is rendered for defendants. *82 But the whole finding of law from which appellant takes the above quotation is as follows: “ That plaintiff is entitled to judgment that plaintiff take nothing by this action, but that said defendants, Hubert Ward and Annie Ward, have judgment against plaintiff for their costs herein.” This roundabout way of expressing the conclusion that plaintiff should take nothing by his action, and that defendants should have judgment against him for costs, was probably the result of inadvertence, or perhaps the word “ not ” was accidentally omitted after the word “is”; but the sentence as it stands clearly enough expresses the meaning that plaintiff should take nothing, and that defendants should have judgment against him.

The judgment is affirmed, with one hundred dollars damages; and the superior court is directed to include that sum of money in the judgment, in addition to other costs.

De Haven, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

1900: 11921: 119002026peak 1900 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Willamette Box & Lumber Co. v. Wheeler202 P. 714 (Or. 1921)
  2. Field v. Burr61 P. 665 (Cal. 1900)

Most recent

  1. Willamette Box & Lumber Co. v. Wheeler202 P. 714 (Or. 1921)
  2. Field v. Burr61 P. 665 (Cal. 1900)

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