Linn v. Twist, Eddy & Co.
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Tenth Judicial District. This was a suit brought for the recovery of $1000, which the plaintiff claimed of defendant for thirty mining claims, and a cabin, sold and deliveerd, as the complaint alleges, by the plaintiff to the defendants. The defendants deny any purchase of claims or cabin from plaintiff, and deny all indebtedness to him. The cause was tried by a jury, who found for the plaintiff $1000, for which judgment was entered, with costs, &c.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Tenth Judicial District. This was a suit brought for the recovery of $1000, which the plaintiff claimed of defendant for thirty mining claims, and a cabin, sold and deliveerd, as the complaint alleges, by the plaintiff to the defendants. The defendants deny any purchase of claims or cabin from plaintiff, and deny all indebtedness to him. The cause was tried by a jury, who found for the plaintiff $1000, for which judgment was entered, with costs, &c. The defendants moved for a new trial, which the court below refused; and from this order the defendants appealed. Several…
1Opinion of the CourtHeydenfeldt, Justice
Wells, Justice, concurred.
The 195th section of the Practice Act, referring to the statement to be made in support of an application for a new trial, says: “ Such statement, when containing any portion of the evidence of the case, and not agreed to by the adverse party, shall be sealed by the Judge, upon notice.”
It is now insisted, that because the statement in this case is-not sealed by the Judge, it must be inferred that it was agreed to. *90To this argument I cannot assent. It is very clear, that to make the statement good, it must either be agreed to or it must be sealed by the Judge; and one…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Dickinson v. Van HornCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858