Quist v. Michael
California Supreme Court
MOTION to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Mendocino County and from an order refusing a new trial. J. Q. White, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.
The appeals in the above-entitled case are from the judgment and from the order denying appellants’ motion for a new trial. Respondents move to dismiss the appeals, the first upon the ground that Sandman, a defaulting defendant, was not served with notice of the appeal and is an adverse party whose rights will be injuriously affected by a reversal or modification of the judgment ; the ■ second upon the ground that the case was tried upon an agreed statement of facts, with a stipulation waiving findings, and that, as a motion for a new trial is a request to the court to re-examine an issue of…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Kenney v. ParksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Hibernia Savings & Loan Society v. BehnkeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
3Cited by4 opinions
- Quist v. SandmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- Confar v. WhelanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
- Pacific Live Stock Co. v. Ellison Ranching Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1921
- Davis v. F. W. Woolworth Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1931