Petterson

Petterson v. Stockton & Tuolumne Railroad

Good Law
134 Cal. 244·1901 Cal. LEXIS 753·66 P. 304
Supreme Court of CaliforniaSeptember 30, 1901Sac. No. 821.California539 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Van Dyke, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant, and also from an order denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.

The motion for new trial was made upon a bill of exceptions, which is brought up as part of the record on the appeal.

1. The appellant claims that the findings are not supported by the evidence; but an examination of the testimony satisfies the court that the evidence is, although somewhat conflicting, sufficient to support the findings.

2. The appellant also claims the court erred in refusing permission to amend his complaint. The application to amend was made during the trial of the cause, and the amendment would have changed the action from one against the defendant, to an action against the defendant and another party jointly. It would have been, in effect, another action, and most likely a trial de novo. Under the circumstances, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in denying the motion to amend.

3. In appellant’s brief it is alleged that the court erred in rejecting evidence. The action is for balance on account, for work, labor, and services alleged to have been performed by the plaintiff for the defendant, and also by one H. J.…

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.