Morris v. De Celis
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial Disrict, Los Angeles County. The statement on motion for a new trial had no certificate of the Judge attached to it, nor did if appear by the record, except as stated in the order denying the motion to set aside the order granting a new trial, that it had been settled.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial Disrict, Los Angeles County. The statement on motion for a new trial had no certificate of the Judge attached to it, nor did if appear by the record, except as stated in the order denying the motion to set aside the order granting a new trial, that it had been settled. The appellant made a statement on appeal from this order, reciting the motion to set aside the order, and containing an affidavit that the motion for a new trial had not been submitted, and that appellant’s counsel had no notice of submission until after the order was made…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Wallace, J.:
A verdict and judgment for defendant having been rendered, the plaintiffs gave notice of their intention to move for a new trial.
The statement in support of the motion, and the amendments proposed thereto, were submitted for settlement on May 9th, 1870." On July seventh following an order was entered granting the motion for a new trial. Neither party appears to have been notified in anywise, in the meantime, that the statement had been, in fact, settled. No opportunity *333for engrossment was afforded, nor was it even known, with certainty, what matters would be…
2Cited by19 opinions
- Stonesifer v. KilburnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Drinkhouse v. Van NessCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
- Robson v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Carpenter v. Superior Court of San Joaquin Cty.California Supreme Court · 1888
- Coombs v. Hibberd.California Supreme Court · 1872
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.