Connell v. Higgins
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
The defendant appeals from the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.
1. The preliminary objections of the respondent to the consideration of the appeal from the judgment and of the statement on motion for new trial are not well taken.
The order made reducing the amount of the judgment, in pursuance of the acceptance by the plaintiff of the conditional order denying a new trial, was not the entry of a new judgment. It did not destroy the appeal from the judgment already entered, nor make it necessary to take a new appeal from the judgment as so reduced, after the order…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Chicago, Santa Fé & California Railroad v. PriceSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- McConnell v. Corona City Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1906
- Alderson v. HoustonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- American-Hawaiian Engineering & Construction Co. v. ButlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Lynn v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1883
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by60 opinions
- Buxbom v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
- Roberts v. Security Trust & Savings BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Jeff D. Ex Rel. Belodoff v. OtterCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- Gray v. BekinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- Thomas Haverty Co. v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
55 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.