Sprigg v. Barber
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of tEe Superior Court of San Diego County and from an order denying a new trial. E. S. Torrance, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
CHIPMAN, C.
1. Respondent submits, in limine, “that the record fails to disclose for review, either on the appeal from the judgment or from the order, any question arising out of any proceedings upon the trial, outside of the judgment-roll; for the reason that the statement specifies no ground of alleged insufficiency of evidence, or of alleged errors of law argued before the court for the new trial.”
Judgment was entered March 20, 1896, and filed March 21, 1896. On March 28th plaintiff served notice of motion for a new trial. The transcript contains what purport to be minutes of the court, to…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Illinois Trust & Savings Bank v. Pacific Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1896
- Ortega v. CorderoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Pico v. CohnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Leonard v. ShawCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Buckley v. AlthorfCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Baar v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
- Sather Banking Co. v. Arthur R. Briggs Co.California Supreme Court · 1903
- Kent v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- Crescent Lumber Co. v. LarsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Grimes v. NicholsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.