Loftus v. Fischer
California Supreme Court
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco denying a new trial. J. C. B. Hebbard, Judge. The main facts are stated in the opinion rendered upon the appeal from the judgment—106 Cal. 506—and further facts are stated in the opinion of the court upon this appeal.
1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.
This is an appeal from the order of the court denying plaintiff a new trial.
In the opinion of this court rendered upon the appeal from the judgment (Loftus v. Fischer, 106 Cal. 616), the facts are fully set forth, and need not here be repeated.
1. It was not error for the court to refuse a continuance on account of the absence of the witnesses Behlow and O’Gorman. Defendant made the admission as to the evidence of these absent witnesses which is contemplated by section 595 of the Codp of Civil Procedure, and the affidavit containing all that it was proposed to prove by them was admitted in…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Fish v. BensonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Loftus v. FischerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- La Societe Francaise D'eparngnes et de Prevoyance Mutuelle v. SelheimerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
3Cited by10 opinions
- Eatwell v. BeckCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Granite Gold Mining Co. v. MaginnessCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Crosby v. MartinezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
- Kan v. TsangCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
- Lydon v. GodardIdaho Supreme Court · 1897
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.