Legal Opinion

MacHado v. Kinney

California Supreme Court

Decided January 17, 1902No. L.A. No. 956PublishedCited by 4 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

GRAY, C.

Action to ■ quiet title and for damages. Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment and from an order denying their motion for a new trial.

1. The notice of intention to move for a new trial does not appear in the record, hut we infer from the fact that appel lants endeavored to have a statement on motion for new trial settled, that the notice of intention specified that the motion for new trial would he heard on a statement of the case. No statement or bill of exceptions to be used on said motion was settled by the court; the order denying the motion for a new trial must therefore be…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Hall v. ArnottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Ortega v. CorderoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  3. Rudel v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  4. Henry v. MerguireCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  5. Hudson v. HudsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Murphy v. StellingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  2. Thayer v. TylerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  3. Brode v. GoslinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
  4. Hartmann v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903

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

Powered by the Exa API