Payne v. Jacobs

• Decision Date: 01 March 1850
• Citation: 1 Cal. 39
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: PAYNE v. JACOBS, ET AL.

1 Cal. 39

PAYNE v. JACOBS, ET AL.

Supreme Court of the State of California

March Term, 1850

March 1, 1850

APPEAL from the Court of First Instance of the District of San Francisco. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the Court. The case was argued by

Alexander Campbell, for the Plaintiff.

Mr. Stafford, for the Defendants.

By the Court, HASTINGS, Ch. J. On the fifth day of December, A.D. 1849, the following entry appears on the records of the Court below: "Now at this day the parties being ready for trial, the Court sitting as a jury hears the proofs, and finds for the plaintiff in the sum of $1083 95, together with the costs and charges in this behalf expended. It is, therefore, considered by the Court that the said plaintiff recover of the said defendants the said sum of one thousand and eighty-three dollars and ninety-five cents, together with the costs and charges in this behalf expended; and that the defendants be required to prove by their books the value of the socks, on next Saturday, at six p.m., at which time the Court will hear further testimony in the case."

And again on the sixth appears the following entry: "Now at this day, upon a rehearing of this case, the Court sets aside the previous judgment, and finds for the plaintiff in the sum of $2789," and enters judgment accordingly.

On the eighth day of the same month, the defendant moves the Court to set aside the verdict and judgment for the following reasons: 1st. Because the verdict is against the law. 2d. Because the verdict is against the evidence, and for other reasons of similar import. Which motion the Court overruled, and an appeal is taken therefrom to this Court. If it appeared from the evidence spread upon the record, that the verdict was against the law, this Court would not hesitate to reverse the order of the Court below; and if it clearly appeared that by any mistake, unlawful interference of either party, or any undue influence whatever, an erroneous verdict had been rendered, a now trial would be ordered. It appears that plaintiff sold to the defendants three invoices of goods, amounting in the whole to the sum of $10,400, one of which invoices consisted of nine hundred and seventy-seven dozens of woolen socks, and fifty pairs of blankets. In the bill of sale it is stated that some of the bales of socks were damaged, but how many or to what extent was unknown, and the parties agreed to refer the articles damaged to J. V. Plume, and that if his decision should not be satisfactory to both parties, the purchasers should take the goods which were not damaged at the pro rata price at which the whole was bought, and the vendees...