Pierce

Pierce v. Birkholm

Bad Law
110 Cal. 669·1896 Cal. LEXIS 532·43 P. 205
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJanuary 10, 1896No. 15464California1,327 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Fleet, J.

Motion to dismiss an appeal.

Judgment was entered in the action in the court below in favor of defendants on August 15, 1892, but subsequently, on August 26, 1892, the court, on motion of plaintiffs, made an order granting a new trial. From the order granting a new trial defendants, on October 24,1892, appealed to this court. After the taking of the appeal from said order, the plaintiffs, on May 10, 1893, took an appeal from the judgment.

We are asked by the defendants to dismiss the appeal *671 from the judgment, upon the ground, as contended, that the effect of the order granting defendants a new trial was to vacate and set aside the judgment, and that, consequently, when the appeal from the latter was taken, it had ceased to have any existence, and there was no judgment to appeal from. This view cannot, in our judgment, be sustained for obvious reasons. The operation of an order granting a new trial is, unquestionably, expressing it in general terms, to vacate the judgment— that is, it sets aside the findings upon which the judgment rests, and the latter necessarily falls. But this implies a valid and subsisting order, remaining in full force and effect. Here the order had…

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.