Primm v. Gray

California Supreme Court
Primm v. Gray, 10 Cal. 522 (Cal. 1858)
Terry

Primm v. Gray

Opinion of the Court

Terry, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court

Field, J., and Baldwin, J., concurring.

The first and second assignments of error are not supported by the record.

The third is not well taken. To support a plea in abatement *523founded on the pendency of a prior action, it is necessary to show that process was issued in such action. (See Weaver v. Conger, 10 Cal.)

The fourth is not supported by the record. Upon the whole, it appears that the appeal was taken merely for delay, and the judgment is affirmed, with ten per cent, damages.

Reference

Full Case Name
PRIMM v. GRAY
Cited By
2 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
To support a plea in abatement founded on the pendency of a prior action, it is necessary to show that process was issued in such action.*