Preston v. Hearst
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment for the defendant, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, in the Twelfth District Court, City and County of San Francisco.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment for the defendant, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, in the Twelfth District Court, City and County of San Francisco. Daingerfield, J. The statement on motion for new trial was filed April 25th, 1875; and the order denying the motion was made September 25th, 1878; and the appeal taken November 23rd, 1878. On the 24th of January, 1879, an order was made in the lower Court allowing specifications to be filed nunc pro tunc, as of the date of the settlement of the statement (April 5th, 1878).
1Opinion of the Court
Department No. 2, Morrison, C. J.:
This is an appeal from what is called a judgment,vs the above case, as well as from an order of the Court below denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.
The decision of the Court, upon the motion for a new trial, cannot be considered on this appeal, for the reason that the ¡.statement is insufficient for that purpose. Subdivision 3 of § 659 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that “ when the notice of the motion designates as the ground of the motion the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict or other decision, the statement shall specify…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Phillips v. LowreyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
3Cited by3 opinions
- Home for the Care of Inebriates v. KaplanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Fox v. FoxCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
- Ellinwood v. BennionUtah Supreme Court · 1929