Little v. Jacks
California Supreme Court
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Monterey County allowing the defendant to amend his notice of intention to move for a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtRoss, J.
It appears from the bill of exceptions in this cause that. on January 9, 1884, the court made and filed its written findings of fact and conclusions of law, and entered its judgment thereon, of which defendant had due notice, on the same day. Within ten days thereafter defendant gave plaintiff notice of his intention to move the court to vacate and set aside the judgment. This was not a notice of intention to move for a new trial. (Sawyer v. Sargent, 65 Cal. 259; Martin v. Matfield, 49 Cal. 42.) The time allowed by statute for the giving of a notice of the latter character expired with the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Martin v. MatfieldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874
- Sawyer v. SargentCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
3Cited by10 opinions
- Union Collection Co. v. OliverCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- Sitkei v. FrimelCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
- Smith v. IbosCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
- Caldwell v. WellsIdaho Supreme Court · 1909
- Barker v. McKellarIdaho Supreme Court · 1930
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.