Legal Opinion

Stiles v. Bodkin

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 1, 1941No. Civ. 2634PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMarks, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment cancelling promissory notes and a deed of trust on property of Henry G. Bodkin and Ruth Bodkin to whom we will refer as the defendants. Plaintiff has attempted to appeal from an order denying his motion for new trial. Such an order is not appealable. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 963.)

The appeal is on the judgment roll. In the absence of the evidence we must presume, “in support of the judgment, that every necessary element of the case, which is not refuted by the judgment-roll, was adequately proved”. (E. E. McCalla Co. v. Sleeper, 105 Cal. App. 562 [288 Pac. 146].)

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. In Re Estate of CoverCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
  2. Toby v. Oregon Pacific RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  3. Field v. AustinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  4. Craig v. WhiteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  5. Walker v. Harbor Business Blocks Co.California Supreme Court · 1919

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Styne v. StevensCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Estate of StevensCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
  3. Griffin v. BredouwSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1966
  4. Ram's Gate Winery, LLC v. RocheCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
  5. French v. Construction Laborers Pension TrustCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API