Dominguez v. Mascotti
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The action was brought to quiet title to certain land. On the 10th of December, 1886, the judge of the lower court, at the close of the trial, ordered judgment for the plaintiff, in accordance with the complaint. On the 20th of that month, before any findings were drawn, signed, or filed, the defendant gave notice of his intention to move for a new trial.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The action was brought to quiet title to certain land. On the 10th of December, 1886, the judge of the lower court, at the close of the trial, ordered judgment for the plaintiff, in accordance with the complaint. On the 20th of that month, before any findings were drawn, signed, or filed, the defendant gave notice of his intention to move for a new trial. This notice was not embodied in the statement on motion for a new trial, although what purported to be a copy of it was printed in…
1Opinion of the Court
Hayne, C.
The notice of motion for a new trial was given before the findings were signed, and was therefore premature and ineffectual. Under the present system the findings constitute “the decision.” Until the findings are signed and filed there is no decision, and nobody is “aggrieved,” within the meaning of section 657 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That a premature notice of motion is ineffectual has frequently been decided. (Mahoney v. Caperton, 15 Cal. 313; Bates v. Gage, 49 Cal. 126; Hinds v. Gage, 56 Cal. 487; Spottiswood v. Weir, 66 Cal. 529.)
It is true that the notice of motion is…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Calderwood v. BrooksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
- Bates v. GageCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874
- Spottiswood v. WeirCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- Girdner v. BeswickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Mahoney v. CapertonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
- Pico v. CohnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Reclamation District No. 556 v. ThisbyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- King v. Pony Gold Mining Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1903
- Arnold v. SinclairMontana Supreme Court · 1892
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.