Legal Opinion

Rahmel v. Lehndorff

California Supreme Court

Decided April 2, 1904No. L.A. No. 1099PublishedCited by 40 opinions

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County and from an order denying a motion for a different judgment upon the findings. Lucien Shaw, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtBeatty, C. J.

Tins is an action by a guest against an innkeeper, to recover damages for an assault and battery by a servant of defendant. The cause was tried in the superior court without a jury, and plaintiff had judgment. Defendant appeals from the judgment and from a subsequent order denying his motion for the entry of a different judgment on the findings.

Bespondent objects to any consideration of the appeal from the order upon the ground that it was not excepted to. But. if it is an appealable order it is deemed excepted to (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 647), and since it is a special order made after final…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Warder v. EnslenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887

3Cited by40 opinions

  1. De Wolf v. . FordNew York Court of Appeals · 1908
  2. G. L. v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Mendoza v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
  4. Wegner v. Delly-Land Delicatessen, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
  5. McFadden v. Bancroft Hotel Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943

35 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