Legal Opinion

People ex rel. Grow v. Rosborough

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1866PublishedCited by 3 opinions

This was an original proceeding commenced in the Supreme Court. The other facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court, Shafter, J.

Petition for a mandamus to be directed to the defendant, commanding him to settle' a statement, on motion for a new trial in Grow v. His Creditors.

It appears that Wetzel, one of the creditors, filed his written opposition to the petitioner’s discharge, on the ground of fraud. The issue was tried by a jury, who found fraud as alleged. Grow moved for a new trial, for errors of law and on the ground that the verdict was not justified by the evidence. .The Judge refused to settle a statement on new trial duly filed and submitted.

Proceedings in insolvency not “ special…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Conant v. ConantCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
  2. Dorsey v. Barry.California Supreme Court · 1864
  3. Cohen v. BarrettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1855
  4. Fisk v. His CreditorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Keech v. JoplinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
  2. Packard v. CraigCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Spiegelman v. BowlusCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936

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

Powered by the Exa API