Dixon v. Hartnett
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtTyler, P. J.
Motion for diminution of record. Respondents herein have made a motion for diminution of record by incorporating in and making part of the transcript on appeal an order amending nunc pro tunc an order granting a motion for a new trial. The order amending the record was made under the following circumstances: An appeal was taken by contestants from an order granting a motion for a new trial of the contest of the probate of the will of deceased. The contest was tried before a jury in February, 1930, nearly four years ago, which resulted in a verdict in favor of contestants, the jury finding the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Drinkhouse v. Van NessCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
- Dixon v. HartnettCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
- Boyer v. BoyerWashington Supreme Court · 1892
- Poole v. OliverSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Podesta v. DeluchiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
3Cited by3 opinions
- Dixon v. EckenrothCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
- Carson v. Emmons Draying & Safe Moving Co.California Court of Appeal · 1936
- Courtell v. McEachenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956