Case ID: cal_3/html/0111-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Murray, Chief Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BROWN, Respondent, v. BROWN and GROVES, Appellants.
    The court below, sitting as a jury, must find separately the facts and conclusions of law. A verdict insufficient in this particular will be reversed.
    But this rule does not apply to a judgment by default against one defendant, where there are two, and the other goes on to trial.
    Appeal from the Superior Court of San Francisco.
    This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover of defendants two promissory notes, set forth in the complaint. One of defendants, Brown, made default, and judgment was entered against him accordingly; the other, Groves, went on to trial; but as the cause went off on grounds distinct from the facts of the case, a further report of them is deemed unnecessary.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Murray, Chief Justice.

This cause comes within the rule laid down by us in Russel v. Armador, in which we decided that the court below, sitting as a jury, must find separately the facts and conclusions of law. The verdict of the court in the present case is insufficient. This rule, however, is not intended to apply to judgments by default.

Judgment reversed as to Groves, and new trial ordered; judgment as to Brown affirmed; costs to abide the event. 
      
       See 2d California Reports, 305.