Odd Fellows' Sav. Bank v. Deuprey
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial, and from an order denying a motion to vacate the order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMcKee, J.
-In this case there are three appeals. The first is from the judgment rendered the 29th of November, 1881, the second from an order denying a motion for a new trial, and the third from an order denying a motion to vacate the order refusing a new trial.
After the decision of the case, defendant served upon the plaintiff’s attorney, notice that he would move for a new trial upon a proposed statement of the case, and upon affidavits, and the minutes of the court. There was no extension of the statutory time for him to serve and file his proposed statement and affidavits; and in fact, he neither…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Coombs v. Hibberd.California Supreme Court · 1872
- Calderwood v. PeyserCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
- Morris v. De CelisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
- Hall v. PolackCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
- Waggenheim v. HookCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
3Cited by18 opinions
- Holtum v. GriefCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Drinkhouse v. Van NessCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
- Robson v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Middleton v. FinneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
- People v. MartinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.