Legal Opinion

Millan v. Hood

California Supreme Court

Decided September 1, 1892No. 14,756Published

APPEAL from Superior Court, Placer County; B. F. Myres, Judge, Action by W. G. Millan against Christopher Hood to enforce a trust in land. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

1Opinion of the Court

VANCLIEF, C.

Action to enforce an alleged trust in land. Judgment for defendant, from which and from an order denying his motion for a new trial the plaintiff appeals.

1. The notice of intention to move for a new trial stated, as the grounds upon which the motion would be made, only insufficiency of the evidence to justify the findings and errors in law committed at the trial. It further stated that the motion would be made “upon a statement of the case.” But the statement of the case, which was thereafter made and allowed by the court, contains no specifications of any particular in which the…

Also in this document: Per curiam.

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Mora v. Le RoyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881

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

Powered by the Exa API