Legal Opinion

Hartzell v. Myall

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 30, 1953No. Civ. 15140PublishedCited by 33 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JONES, J. pro tem.

This appeal is from a judgment entered upon the verdict of a jury awarding respondents both punitive and compensatory damages. The action involves an allegedly fraudulent sale of a furnished boarding house located at 608 27th Street in the city of Oakland. The appeal is also from the order denying appellant’s motion for a new trial, but since such an order is nonappealable, the purported appeal therefrom should be dismissed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 963; 2 Cal.Jur. § 34, p. 173; Roberts v. Brae, 5 Cal.2d 356 [54 P.2d 698].)

Respondents are husband and wife. Mrs. Hartzell was…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Crawford v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Estate of Bristol v. YoungCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  3. Nichols v. MitchellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
  4. Panos v. Great Western Packing Co.California Supreme Court · 1943
  5. Hind v. Oriental Products Co., Inc.California Supreme Court · 1925

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. Ward v. TaggartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
  2. Agnew v. ParksCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
  3. New v. NewCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
  4. Eramdjian v. Interstate Bakery Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1957
  5. City of Menlo Park v. ArtinoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957

28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API