Legal Opinion

Grow v. Rosborough

California Supreme Court

Decided February 5, 1866No. 763Published

1Opinion of the CourtShafteb, J.

Petition for a mandamus to be directed to the defendant commanding Mm to settle a statement on motion for new trial in Grow v. His Creditors.

It appears that Wetzel, one of the creditors, filed his written opposition to the petitioner’s discharge on the ground of fraud. The issue was tried by a jury, who found fraud as alleged. Grow moved for a new trial for errors of law and on the ground that the verdict was not justified by the evidence. The judge refused to settle a statement on new trial, duly filed and submitted.

Proceedings in insolvency are no longer to be regarded as “special oases” in…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Conant v. ConantCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
  2. Dorsey v. Barry.California Supreme Court · 1864
  3. Cohen v. BarrettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1855
  4. Fisk v. His CreditorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API