Brichman v. Ross
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Searls, C.
Action to recover personal property. Plaintiff had judgment, /rom which and from an order denying a new trial defendant appeals. '
The verdict of the jury was rendered and judgment entered thereon December 7, 1882.
Notice of motion for a new trial was served and filed December 18, 1882, more than ten days after verdict and judgment, and respondent claims here for the first time, so far as is shown by the record, that the motion came too late, and that the validity of the proceedings, so far as involved in the motion for new trial, cannot be considered.; 1. A party intending to move…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Savacool v. BoughtonNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Rinchey v. . StrykerNew York Court of Appeals · 1863
- Thornburgh v. HandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1857
- Berson v. NunanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
- Hobbs v. DuffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Wald v. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis R. R. Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1896
- Thompson v. Cal. Construction Co.California Supreme Court · 1905
- Claudius v. AguirreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Thompson v. LaughlinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Erreca v. MeyerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.