Mulholland v. Heyneman
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Twelfth District. The facts of the case appear in the opinion of the Court below, denying the application to set aside the judgment, which is as follows: “ When the cause was on the day calendar for trial, both parties, by their attorneys, -were in attendance at Court, waiting the termination of a case then on trial. Defendant’s attorney spoke to the counsel in the cause on trial, and was informed that the cause would occupy till the usual recess.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Twelfth District. The facts of the case appear in the opinion of the Court below, denying the application to set aside the judgment, which is as follows: “ When the cause was on the day calendar for trial, both parties, by their attorneys, -were in attendance at Court, waiting the termination of a case then on trial. Defendant’s attorney spoke to the counsel in the cause on trial, and was informed that the cause would occupy till the usual recess. He also spoke to the plaintiff’s attorney, and told him that he wished to leave the Court for a short time ; and was informed by…
1Opinion of the CourtCope, J.
Field, C. J. concurring.
This is an appeal from an order refusing to set aside a judgment on the ground of surprise. The application was addressed to the legal discretion of the Court; and upon the affidavits before us, we cannot undertake to say that this discretion has been improperly exercised. The recent case of Haight v. Green is decisive of the matter.
Order affirmed.
2Cited by6 opinions
- Bailey v. TaaffeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
- McGuire v. DrewCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Whiteside v. LoganMontana Supreme Court · 1888
- Kinkead v. MoriartySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1912
- Zimmerer v. Fremont National BankNebraska Supreme Court · 1900
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.