Tinney v. Endicott
California Supreme Court
Tinney v. Endicott, 5 Cal. 102 (Cal. 1855)
Heydenfeldt
Tinney v. Endicott
Opinion of the Court
Murray, C. J., concurred.
The third instruction asked for by defendant’s counsel, ought to have been given. The reason given for the refusal is, that a rule of the
For this error the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- CARLETON K. TINNEY and WILLIAM S. LITTLE v. WILLIAM H. ENDICOTT
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- A rulo oí Court requiring counsel to file and submit to the Court any instructions they may offer before the argument is closed, to the jury, docs not operate where the cause is submitted without argument.