O'Malley

O'Malley v. Carrick

Good Law
1922 Cal. App. LEXIS 51·60 Cal. App. 48·212 P. 45
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 1, 1922Civ. No. 4336.California1,427 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Kerrigan, J.

The plaintiff having recovered a verdict against the defendants as administrator and administratrix of the estate of Catherine Ross, deceased, the defendant James Garrick served and filed a notice of intention to move for a new trial. His codefendant, being satisfied with the verdict, did not join in the motion. The motion was granted, and the plaintiff appeals from the trial court’s order thereon.

The first ground urged in support of the appeal is that the trial court was without jurisdiction to entertain the motion for a new trial for the reason that the moving party’s codefendant was not served with the notice thereof. In making this point it is admitted by the appellant that it is only those parties to the action or proceeding whose interest would be adversely affected by the granting of the motion for a new trial who need be served with the notice thereof; but he argues that the interest of said Catherine Nicholson would be so adversely affected, for the reason that she, being an administratrix of the estate of the deceased, had the right, if she were satisfied with the correctness of the verdict, to insist that it be not disturbed; and that if the verdict were set aside and…

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.