Preston

Preston v. Hearst

Good Law
54 Cal. 595
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 1, 1880No. 6,444California245 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Departmentmorrison, J.

This is an appeal from what is called a judgment,vs the above case, as well as from an order of the Court below denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.

The decision of the Court, upon the motion for a new trial, cannot be considered on this appeal, for the reason that the ¡.statement is insufficient for that purpose. Subdivision 3 of § 659 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that “ when the notice of the motion designates as the ground of the motion the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict or other decision, the statement shall specify the particulars in which such evidence is alleged to be insufficient.” The statement in this case fails to specify such particulars, and does not comply with the foregoing provision of the Code. It is, therefore, insufficient. (Phillips v. Lowery et al. 54 Cal. 584 .)

There is also an appeal from what was called, upon the argument, the judgment in the case. It is in these words :

It is unnecessary for the Court to determine at this time whether the above entry is a judgment or not. If it is a judgment, the appeal was not taken in time, and should therefore be dismissed. If it- is simply an order for a judgment, the appeal…

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.