MacHado v. Kinney
California Supreme Court
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
- Hall v. ArnottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Ortega v. CorderoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Rudel v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Henry v. MerguireCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Hudson v. HudsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Murphy v. StellingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Thayer v. TylerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Brode v. GoslinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
- Hartmann v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903