Brett v. S. H. Frank & Co.
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMcFARLAND, J.
This is an action for damages. After trial and verdict for plaintiff the court granted defendants’ motion for a new trial and plaintiff appeals.
The court ordered a new trial “on the ground that the motion for nonsuit should have been granted,. and order denied on all other grounds.” It is contended by appellant that this limits the consideration of this court to the one proposition. The question is not of consequence in this ease for, upon the ground indicated, the court was correct in its ruling. However, the position of appellant in this matter -is contrary to the well-settled rule.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Kauffman v. MaierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Giraude v. Elec. Improvement Co. of San JoseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Thompson v. Cal. Construction Co.California Supreme Court · 1905
- Weisser v. Southern Pacific Ry. Co.California Supreme Court · 1906
- Davis v. California Street Cable RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Kirk v. Los Angeles Railway Corp.California Supreme Court · 1945
- Ulmen v. SchwiegerMontana Supreme Court · 1932
- County of Alameda v. TieslauCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
- Jacobson v. Oakland Meat & Packing Co.California Supreme Court · 1911
- Weddle v. HeathCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.