Legal Opinion

Quist v. Michael

California Supreme Court

Decided April 20, 1908No. S.F. No. 4821PublishedCited by 4 opinions

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

  1. Kenney v. ParksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  2. Hibernia Savings & Loan Society v. BehnkeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Quist v. SandmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  2. Confar v. WhelanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
  3. Pacific Live Stock Co. v. Ellison Ranching Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1921
  4. Davis v. F. W. Woolworth Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1931

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

Powered by the Exa API