Legal Opinion

Soto v. Globe Grain & Milling Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 5, 1921No. Civ, No. 3759PublishedCited by 5 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtJames, J.

This action was brought to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff by reason of the defendant having appropriated to its own use property of the plaintiff, consisting of ninety-eight head of cattle. A jury returned a verdict' in favor of the plaintiff and the trial judge granted a motion for a new trial, from which order plaintiff has appealed. The only question to be considered is as to whether, upon the evidence presented in the trial court, the making of the order complained of amounted to an abuse of discretion. [1] The rule is a familiar one and well settled that…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Drathman v. CohenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  2. Martin v. MartinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Weringer v. RutledgeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Rosenberg v. Geo. A. Moore & Co.California Supreme Court · 1924
  2. People v. FrazierCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
  3. Wulbern v. Gilroy ExpressCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
  4. Scott v. Southern Pacific Co.California Court of Appeal · 1929
  5. O'Brien v. Dickinson Drug Co.California Court of Appeal · 1927

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API