TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Randall v. Freed

ANNA RANDALL v. CLARK V. FREED

Randall v. Freed, 94 P. 1056 (Cal. Ct. App. 1908)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
California Court of Appeal · State Appellate Courts
Decided
February 15, 1908
Docket
No. Civ. No. 397
Judges
Burnett
Citations
94 P. 10567 Cal. App. 5531908 Cal. App. LEXIS 330
Syllabus
Action for Damages Exceeding $2,000.—Cross-complaint for Injunction—Appeal—Jurisdiction of Supreme Court.—Where the plaintiff brought an action to recover damages for personal injuries in excess of $2,000, and the defendant, besides answering, filed a cross-complaint for an injunction to restrain plaintiff from the commission of a nuisance, and the judgment was for the defendant, from which and from an order denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, the plaintiff appealed, the supreme court has exclusive jurisdiction of such appeal, and, when taken to this court, it must be transferred to the supreme court.
Summary
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Placer County, and from an order denying a new trial. J. E. Prewett, Judge. 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 — Burnett

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

BURNETT, J.

The action was brought for damages in the amount of $2,070 for personal injuries. The defendant filed an answer and cross-complaint in which he sought an injunction to restrain plaintiff from the commission of a nuisance. The judgment was in favor of defendant, from which and the order denying her motion for a new trial plaintiff appealed directly to this court.

It is conceded by appellant and it must be so held under article II, section 4 of the constitution, that the appeal should have been taken in the first instance to the supreme court.

The cause is transferred to the supreme court.

Hart, J., and Chipman, P. J., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites 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