Grant v. White
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court of the City of San Francisco. In this cause judgment was rendered against the defendant in the Court below. Defendant moved for a new trial, and in the meantime, employed other attorneys. No substitution of attorneys was filed, nor notice thereof given to plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of the City of San Francisco. In this cause judgment was rendered against the defendant in the Court below. Defendant moved for a new trial, and in the meantime, employed other attorneys. No substitution of attorneys was filed, nor notice thereof given to plaintiff. Plaintiff’s attorney served notice of argument on defendant’s attorney of record, who informed plaintiff’s attorney that defendant had employed other attorneys, and that he was no longer in the case. Plaintiff’s attorney insisting on serving the defendant’s attorney of record, the latter promised to…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Heydenfeldt
Mr. Chief Justice Murray concurred.
The only point raised by the Bill of Exceptions is the want of proper notice by defendant’s counsel of the time for argument of the motion for a new trial. The notice, it seems, was served on Mr. Kewen after *56his connection with the case had ceased, and the defence of it had heen turned over to Mr. Crockett. To avail the defendant of this objection, there should have been a regular substitution of counsel in the mode pointed out by the statute.
There is no statement of the case which will enable us to consider the other assignments of error. Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by9 opinions
- Reynolds v. ReynoldsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- People v. BouchardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
- Wilkinson v. TildenU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1883
- Sherman v. PannoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
- Abrahms v. StokesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.