Dixon

Dixon v. Pluns

Good Law
101 Cal. 511·1894 Cal. LEXIS 1066·35 P. 1030
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMarch 2, 1894No. 14429California605 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Garoutte, J.

This case has previously been before the court. (See 98 Cal. 384 .) At that time the appeal *512 from the judgment was not passed upon, but the appeal from the order denying a new trial was sustained, and the cause remanded, with directions to the trial court to hear evidence upon the manner in which the jury arrived at their verdict, and thereupon to pass upon the motion for a new trial. This course was followed by the lower court, and thereafter the motion was denied and this appeal taken from the order denying the same. The application for a new trial was based solely upon the ground that the jury had been guilty of misconduct in this, that the verdict was arrived at by a resort to chance, and evidence both oral and by affidavit was presented to the trial court for its enlightenment upon that question. The court found that the verdict was not arrived at by a resort to the determination of chance; that the jury was not guilty of misconduct; and denied the motion for a new trial.

Section 657, subdivision 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure provides substantially that whenever any one or more of the jurors have been induced to assent to any general or special verdict, or to a…

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.