Lauritzen

Lauritzen v. H. L. Judell & Co.

Good Law
109 Cal. App. 168·1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 486·292 P. 536
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 24, 1930Docket No. 4150.California974 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

This cause is before us upon an appeal by the defendants from an order granting a new trial after judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Andrew Lauritzen, in the sum of $350. The jury in the above-entitled cause rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, Florence Lauritzen, in the sum of $12,000 and in favor of her husband, against the defendants, in the sum above named. The motion for new trial was made by the plaintiff, Andrew Lauritzen, only in so far as it affected the judgment in his favor, and the order granting a new trial related only to that part of the judgment.

It is contended by the appellants that the trial court had no jurisdiction to make the order granting a new trial to the plaintiff, Andrew Lauritzen by reason of more than sixty days having elapsed from and after service on said plaintiff of a written notice of the entry of judgment. The appellants rely upon the provisions of section 660 of the Code of Civil Procedure limiting the power of the court to grant a new trial within the period named. This contention is met by the respondents with the statement that as the sixtieth day fell upon the first day of January, a non judicial day, the court had all of January…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.