Miller v. Queen Insurance
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, dismissing a motion for new trial. J. M. Seawell, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHarrison, P. J.
Appeal from an order dismissing the defendant’s motion for a new trial. The defendant gave notice of its intention to move for a new trial April 4, 1902, and having thereafter served upon the plaintiff its proposed bill of exceptions, to which the plaintiff had proposed certain amendments, gave the plaintiff notice of its rejection of the amendments, and that on June 28th it would present the bill and the amendments to the judge for settlement. On that day the judge was absent from San Francisco, and the defendant delivered the proposed bill and amendments to the clerk for the judge. It does…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Mowry v. WeisenbornCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Kubli v. HawkettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Galbraith v. LoweCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- San Jose Land & Water Co. v. AllenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
3Cited by5 opinions
- State v. MilesSupreme Court of Kansas · 1963
- Derr v. BusickCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
- Bryan v. TevisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
- Howland v. HowlandCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
- Slye v. HuntCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1915