History
  • No items yet
midpage
Tirrell v. Jones
39 Cal. 655
Cal.
1870
Check Treatment
Crockett, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court:

We discover no error in this record. The testimony of the plaintiff proves the contract substantially as alleged in the complaint; and though the defendant contradicts the plaintiff in most of his material statements in respect to the contract, it is simply a case of conflicting evidence, on the credibility of which it was peculiarly the province of the jury to decide. The charge of the Court, we think, placed the case fairly before the jury, and we perceive no reason for disturbing the verdict. The item for interest on the money invested by the defendant in the enterprise was properly excluded by the Court. As we construe the contract, it was not within the contemplation of the parties that the defendant was to charge interest on the money to be advanced by him.

Judgment affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Tirrell v. Jones
Court Name: California Supreme Court
Date Published: Jul 1, 1870
Citation: 39 Cal. 655
Docket Number: No. 2,137
Court Abbreviation: Cal.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.