Legal Opinion
Caney v. Silverthorne
California Supreme Court
Decided July 1, 1858PublishedCited by 5 opinions
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District. The facts upon which this case turned, appear in the opinion of the Court.
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
The defendant, having failed to give notice of his intention to move for a new trial, or to file his statement within the time *68limited by the statute, lost his right to move for a new trial. (Practice Act, § 195.)
There is no statement on appeal; the statement for new trial not having been filed in time, is not properly a part of the record. We can only look at the judgment-roll; which, being regular on its face, judgment is affirmed, with costs.
2Cited by5 opinions
- Campbell v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
- Louder v. HunterSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1911
- Purdy v. SteelIdaho Supreme Court · 1868
- Washington & Idaho Railroad v. OsborneIdaho Supreme Court · 1889
- Kerns v. DeanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885