Legal Opinion

Houser & Haines Manufacturing Co. v. Hargrove

California Supreme Court

Decided June 30, 1900No. Sac. No. 738PublishedCited by 18 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtVan Dyke, J.

The appeal in this case is taken from the judgment, as well as from the order denying plaintiff’s motion for a new- trial. This,-judgment was entered on the twelfth day of August, 1897, and the notice of appeal served August %, 1899, nearly two years after the rendition of the judgment. This court, therefore, cannot entertain the appeal from the judgment. The order denying the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial was entered June 6, 1899, and the notice of appeal therefrom, as already shown, was in time. The motion for a new trial, under our code and practice, is a proceeding independent of the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Brison v. BrisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Stockton Savings & Loan Society v. PurvisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Palmer v. HowardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  4. Caraway v. WallaceSupreme Court of Alabama · 1841
  5. Wright v. VaughnSupreme Court of Vermont · 1873

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Sherman v. QuinnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
  2. People v. Bank of San Luis ObispoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
  3. Union Collection Co. v. OliverCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  4. Keyes v. BaskervilleSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1919
  5. Kline v. MurrayMontana Supreme Court · 1927

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API