Estate of Easton

Dixon v. Hartnett

Good Law
118 Cal. App. 659·1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 368·5 P.2d 635
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 28, 1931Docket No. 7893.California900 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

This is an appeal by the contestants of decedent’s will from a judgment in favor of the proponents, rendered by the court notwithstanding a verdict of a jury finding that the will was procured by undue influence.

Section 629 of the Code of Civil Procedure, authorizing the rendition of a judgment non obstante veredicto, reads as follows: “When a motion for a directed verdict, which should have been granted, has been denied and a verdict rendered against the moving party, the court, at any time before the entry of judgment, either of its own motion or on motion of the aggrieved party, shall render judgment in favor of the aggrieved party notwithstanding the verdict. ...” (Italics ours.) And in construing said section it has been definitely held that the making of the motion for a directed verdict during the trial of the action is a necessary prerequisite to the rendition of such a judgment. (Cushman v. Cliff House, 79 Cal. App. 572 [250 Pac. 575]; Estate of Yale, 214 Cal. 115 [4 Pac. (2d) 153].) As pointed out in the Cushman ease, the legislature in enacting said section adopted in substance the provisions of similar statutes of Minnesota and North Dakota, and in those states, too,…

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.