Loucks v. Edmondson
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Third District. Action to recover personal property. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant prepared a statement on motion for new trial, and plaintiff moved to dismiss said statement on the ground that it was “insufficient, and not a lawful statement.” Motion denied ; and defendant permitted to add the grounds of his motion for new trial.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Third District. Action to recover personal property. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant prepared a statement on motion for new trial, and plaintiff moved to dismiss said statement on the ground that it was “insufficient, and not a lawful statement.” Motion denied ; and defendant permitted to add the grounds of his motion for new trial. The motion for new trial being subsequently granted, plaintiff appeals from the order allowing defendant to amend his statement, and also from the order granting a new trial.
1Opinion of the CourtField, C. J.
Cope, J. concurring.
1. The motion to strike out the statement for a new trial for the *204reason that it was “ insufficient, and not a lawful statement,” was properly overruled. The notice should have specified the grounds upon which the motion would be made, and wherein it would be contended that the statement was insufficient, and failed to comply with the law. As it was given, it did not apprise the adverse party of the nature of the objections which would be urged. (Freeborn v. Glazer, 10 Cal. 337.)
2. The amendment to the statement, by the addition of the grounds upon which a new trial would…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Freeborn v. GlazerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
3Cited by14 opinions
- In re Estate of LambCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Swett v. GrayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Donnelly v. StruevenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
- Garrett v. GarrettCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916
- Walden v. MurdockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.