Case Name: JAMES M. ESTELL, Respondent, v. RICHARD CHENERY et al., Appellants
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1853-10
Citations: 3 Cal. 467
Docket Number: 
Parties: JAMES M. ESTELL, Respondent, v. RICHARD CHENERY et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 467–468

Head Matter:
JAMES M. ESTELL, Respondent, v. RICHARD CHENERY et al., Appellants.
Process issued against several defendants, but one of whom appeared ; no default was taken as to the others, and a joint judgment was rendered against all. And there being no sufficient finding of the facts and conclusions of law to sustain, the judgment, the verdict being general, the judgment was reversed.
Appeal from the Seventh Judicial District, Solono County.
This was an action for services, alleged by plaintiff to have been rendered by him to defendants, in corralling and separating cattle, for the keep of the cattle, for the use of horses, and the loss of horses incurred in the service so alleged to have been rendered.
The defendant, Chenery, who alone was served with process, denied all and singular the services, all the allegations, and all indebtedness ; and set out that he had bought certain cattle from plaintiff, who was to deliver them free of expense; and the services, if rendered at all, were for plaintiff’s own benefit, &c.
There was no evidence returned with the record, and no waiver of a trial by jury is noted, if it was agreed to.
In this state of the record, the following entry appears:—
“ This action being called for trial, the plaintiff being present, and the defendant, Chenery, who has heretofore answered, being absent, the court, after hearing the evidence, and being advised of the law, decides that the defendants are indebted to the said plaintiff in the sum of $3785; and that said plaintiff ought to recover judgment against the said defendants in that amount. Let judgment be entered accordingly.”
From this judgment, defendants appealed.
Crockett and Baker, for appellants.
There was no service, no appearance for any defendant, except Chenery, and the judgment is general against all.
There was no valid waiver of a jury trial by defendants. The court did not state the facts found, nor state separately the conclusions of law.

Opinion:
Murray, Chief Justice,
delivered the opinion of the court. Heydenfeldt, Justice, concurred.
The plaintiff commenced his action in the court below, against Chenery and others, as co-partners. Service was had on Chenery alone, who answered, denying all the allegations. No default was taken as to the other defendants, and upon the final hearing of the cause, the court rendered a joint judgment against all.
There is no sufficient finding of the facts and conclusions of law, by the court below, to sustain the judgment, the verdict being general.
Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered.