Hoffman v. Guy M. Rush Co.
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County and from an order denying a new trial. Charles Wellborn, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtConrey, P. J.
Appeal by the defendant from the judgment and from an order denying its motion for a new trial.
There was no abuse of discretion by the superior court in refusing a continuance of the trial after denying the defendant’s motion for nonsuit. The only witness proposed for defendant was not present. No subpoena had been served upon this witness and on the showing made the court had legal authority to proceed without delay.
The findings were signed by the judge without any preliminary service upon defendant of proposed findings. Assuming without deciding that the new provisions of section 634 of the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Brown v. Crown Gold Milling Co.California Supreme Court · 1907
- Pacific Bank v. StoneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
3Cited by10 opinions
- Sessions v. Pacific Improvement Co.California Court of Appeal · 1922
- Rosland v. ConstantineauCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
- Dineen v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
- Greve v. Taft Realty Co.California Court of Appeal · 1929
- Lynn v. BensfieldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.