Comerford v. Dupuy
California Supreme Court
Comerford v. Dupuy, 17 Cal. 308 (Cal. 1861)
Baldwin
Comerford v. Dupuy
Opinion of the Court
Fields, C. J. concurring.
The judgment must be affirmed. The criticism of the answer in this case cannot be maintained ; at least, the defects suggested were not sufficient to sustain the motion to strike out. We cannot interfere with the discretion of the Court in refusing a new trial.
We think a party cannot recover for injuries done by cattle of / defendant breaking into plaintiff’s close, unless the land entered be inclosed by a fence of the character prescribed in the statute, or at least, by an inclosure equivalent to that described in the statute in /its capacity to exclude cattle. (See Pennsylvania cases cited in respondents’ brief.)
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- COMERFORD v. DUPUY
- Cited By
- 6 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- The motion in this case to strike out the answers because denying on information and belief, and for judgment on the complaint: Held, to he properly overruled. See facts. A party cannot recover for injuries done by cattle of defendant breaking into plaintiff’s close, unless the land entered be inclosed by a fence of the character described by statute, or at least by an inclosure equivalent, in its capacity to exclude cattle, to the statutory fence.