Hutchason v. Marks
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
BISHOP, J. pro tem.
In Slemons v. Paterson, (1939) 14 Cal.2d 612 [96 P.2d 125], the Supreme Court reversed an order granting a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence (which was, that the Patersons had been absent from the state), and in doing so made these observations which are particularly pertinent to this case (pp. 615, 616) : “The only reason stated in plaintiffs’ affidavit for failing to discover and produce this evidence upon the trial, is that they did not know that the Patersons had been absent from the state during said period, and that prior to the time that they…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Slemons v. PatersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
- Hutchason v. MarksCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
- Klockenbaum v. PiersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
- Santa Cruz Rock Pavement Co. v. BowieCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
3Cited by1 opinion
- Edwards v. FloydCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950