Beer v. Clifton
California Supreme Court
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Mendocino County granting a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
McFarland, J.—
This action was brought to recover $3,500, with interest, costs, etc., upon a promissory note made by defendants to plaintiff on March 29, 18-90, and payable July 1, 1890. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff for only $1,240.24; and plaintiff moved for a new trial upon the grounds of insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict, that the verdict is against law, and errors of law occurring at the trial, etc. The court granted a motion for a new trial, stating in its order that the motion was granted because “ the first and third instructions offered by defendants’…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Keyes v. FenstermakerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
- Light v. KingsburySupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
- Leavitt v. . PutnamNew York Court of Appeals · 1850
- Swartz v. RedfieldSupreme Court of Kansas · 1874
- Goodwin v. DavenportSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1860
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Merchs. Nat'l Bank of Santa Monica v. BentelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Driggers v. United StatesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1908
- Driggers v. United StatesCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1908
- Driggers v. United StatesCourt Of Appeals Of Indian Territory · 1907
- Bardshar v. ChaffeeWashington Supreme Court · 1916
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.