Hartman v. Rogers
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San. Bernardino County, and. from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMcKinstry, J.
Appellant contends that there is absolutely no testimony in the statement for new trial tending to, show the value of plaintiff’s services. The statement contains no specification of a deficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding as to the value of the services. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 659, subd. 3.)
There is a substantial conflict of the evidence bearing on other issues.
The defendant claimed that the plaintiff, although employed to work for him under a specific contract for a term, violated his contract during the term, and ousted defendant both from the real and personal property…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Gibbons v. TerritoryCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1911
- Brown v. Crown Gold Milling Co.California Supreme Court · 1907
- Ayoob v. AyoobCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
- Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. Winckler & Smith Citrus Products Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1960
- Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Republic Productions, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1941
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.