Hicks

Hicks v. Masten

Good Law
101 Cal. 651·1894 Cal. LEXIS 1094·36 P. 130
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMarch 20, 1894No. 15075California972 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Haynes, J.

This is an original application to this

court for a writ of mandate requiring the respondent to settle a bill of exceptions.

Petitioners were defendants in an action tried before respondent and a jury in said superior court, wherein one J. F. Sharp was plaintiff. A verdict was rendered against petitioners, and a judgment was entered thereon. *652 Petitioners served upon Sharp’s attorneys a proposed hill of exceptions, and on April 5, 1892, amendments thereto were served upon petitioners’ attorneys. On April 9th the original proposed bill was left with the judge at his chambers, and on the following day the proposed amendments, and certain„ objections which were served by Sharp’s attorneys, were also left in the judge’s chambers. On the 11th, in open court, one of Sharp’s attorneys being present, counsel for petitioners requested the court to fix a time for the settlement of the bill of exceptions, “and the judge, from the bench, stated that the bill of exceptions and objections to settlement, and proposed amendments to the bill in the case of Sharp v. Hoffman, had been left with him for settlement and were in his chambers, and that he would proceed to settle the same on the…

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.