Hinkle v. San Francisco & North Pacific Railroad
California Supreme Court
Appeal from an order granting, a new trial, in the Twenty-second District Court, County of Sonoma. Temple, J. The rulings referred to in the opinion were as follows: The plaintiff moved the Court to instruct the jury that if they found that there was work done in excess of the estimates of the chief engineer, they should find for the plaintiff for the value of such excess at the contract price, and the Court modified the instruction by adding the following words: “ provided…
Read the full summary
Appeal from an order granting, a new trial, in the Twenty-second District Court, County of Sonoma. Temple, J. The rulings referred to in the opinion were as follows: The plaintiff moved the Court to instruct the jury that if they found that there was work done in excess of the estimates of the chief engineer, they should find for the plaintiff for the value of such excess at the contract price, and the Court modified the instruction by adding the following words: “ provided that you find that the estimates of Zooks (the chief engineer) were false and fraudulent, but if they were honestly made…
1Opinion of the Court
Ross, J.:
The plaintiffs moved for a new trial in the Court below, on a bill of exceptions, solely upon the ground of alleged errors in law occurring at the trial and excepted to by them. The Judge who tried the cause and passed upon the motion, thought that the first exception was “probably well taken,” and therefore entered an order granting a new trial. From that order defendant brings this appeal.
No question of fact being involved, it will be our duty to reverse the order if, in our opinion, no error of law was committed in the trial already had; and this is to be determined from the…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Sharon v. Sharon, 11991 (Cal. 7-17-1889)California Supreme Court · 1889
- James v. JamesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- State v. SchnepelMontana Supreme Court · 1900
- Evans v. De LayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Aultman & Taylor Co. v. GundersonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1894