Pendergrass v. Cross
California Supreme Court
Application for a writ of mandate to the Superior Court of Tulare County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
The Court.
A judgment for defendant was entered in an action, wherein the petitioner was plaintiff, and one Burris was defendant. The plaintiff in that action gave notice of intention to move for a new trial, and served on defendant’s attorney a draught statement of the case. Within statutory time the defendant served amendments to the statement, which were adopted by the plaintiff. We say the amendments were adopted, because the plaintiff did not indicate his non-adoption of them by serving notice that the statement and amendments would be presented to the judge for settlement, as prescribed…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Murphy v. StellingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Black v. HillikerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Gay v. TorranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Whipple v. HopkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Brode v. GoslinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.