Peters v. Foss
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Tenth District. Suit for damages to mining claims. Further facts than appear in the opinion is unnecessary.
1Opinion of the CourtCope, J.
Baldwin J. concurring.
On the trial of this case, it was held by the Court that the answer *358was insufficient to raise an issue, except upon one of the allegations of the complaint, and the introduction of evidence was limited accordingly. When the answer was declared to be insufficient, the defendants asked leave to amend, but the Court refused to allow the amendment, and the plaintiff obtained a verdict. A new trial was afterwards granted, and from the order granting it the plaintiff appeals to this Court.
A motion for a new trial is always addressed to the sound discretion of the Court, and we…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Murray v. HeinzeMontana Supreme Court · 1895
- Farmers' Natl. Gold Bank v. StoverCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
- Burns v. ScooffyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Patterson & Frisbie v. ElyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
- McCausland v. RalstonNevada Supreme Court · 1877
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.