Naphtaly v. Rovegno
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco denying a new trial. William R. Daingerfi'eld, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMcFARLAND, J.
This is an action for a partition of certain described land. The defendants, Rosa Rovegno and Jiacomo Rovegno, appeal from an order denying their motions for a new trial. The only point which they insist on for a reversal of the order is that the court below erred in denying th'eir demand for a jury.
Whether or not certain issues in the case were of such a character as to give to appellants the general right to have them tried before a jury is a question not necessary to be here determined; for we think that the court, for specific reasons hereinafter mentioned, did not err in refusing the-…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Adams v. CrawfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
3Cited by6 opinions
- People v. Metropolitan Surety Co.California Supreme Court · 1912
- Norland v. GouldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
- Kohlsaat v. KohlsaatNevada Supreme Court · 1945
- Wendling Lumber Co. v. Glenwood Lumber Co.California Court of Appeal · 1912
- Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. GandolfoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.