# Mateer v. Brown

> California Supreme Court · December 15, 1850 · 1 Cal. 231

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5432313

## Case

- **Full name:** Mateer v. Brown
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 15, 1850
- **Citations:** 1 Cal. 231
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Bennett
- **Judges:** Bennett
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5432313

## Opinion text

By the Court,
BeNNett, J.
A re-hearing having been granted in this case, it has been a second time argued. It is objected that the court has not the power to review its former judgment. The remittitur not having been sent to, nor filed with, the court below, we still have control over the cause. (See Grogan & Lent v. Ruckle, ante, p. 193, and cases there cited.)
Tbe counsel for the plaintiff asks us to modify our former *232 judgment, and decide that certain facts were proved at the trial, by evidence independent of that which we held in our former decision to be incompetent. The determination whether such facts were proved or not, was peculiarly within the province of the jury, or the district court sitting as a jury. "What weight the improper evidence had on the mind of the district judge in coming to the conclusion which he arrived at, we cannot determine ; and where a judgment is founded in part on incompetent evidence, unless we can clearly see that it had no effect, the judgment is erroneous. (Trimble v. Thorner, 16 John. 89 ; Osgood v. Manhattan Co. 3 Cow. 612 .) Our former decision must stand.
Ordered accordingly.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5432313. Public record. Not legal advice.