Hearst v. Dennison
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, from an order refusing to settle a statement on motion for a new trial, and. from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMcFarland, J.
— This is an action for unlawful detainer of land after non-payment of rent. Plaintiff had:' judgment in the court below, and defendant appeals,— 1. From the judgment; 2. From an order of the judge-of the lower court refusing to settle a proposed statement on motion for new trial; and 3. From an order denying a motion for new trial.
*2281. The judgment roll shows no error, and the appeal from the judgment has no merits.
2. The transcript contains a hill of exceptions, which shows that after appellant had served and filed a notice of motion for a new trial, he served and presented to the judge,…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Dainty Pretzel Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
- Walkerley v. GreeneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Visher v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Nichols v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938