Hughes

Hughes v. Alsip

Good Law
112 Cal. 587·1896 Cal. LEXIS 716·44 P. 1027
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMay 9, 1896Sac. No. 29California981 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

McFarland, J.

Action to foreclose several liens for street assessments in Sacramento City. Judgment went for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals from the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

The motion for a new trial cannot be considered, «though that question is not of much consequence here, because nearly all of appellant’s points are made on the alleged insufficiency of the complaint. The notice of motion for a new trial does not state what it will be based on; that is, it does not state whether it would be made upon affidavits, minutes of the court, bill of exceptions, or statement, as required by section 659 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Respondents are not estopped from making this point because they presented amendments to a certain bill of exceptions proposed by appellant and took part in the settlement of said bill. Appellant had the right to a bill of exceptions to be used on his appeal from the judgment; and an objection by respondents that his notice of motion for a new trial was defective would not have affected his right to have the bill settled. He could have waived his'motion for a new trial and still have been entitled to his bill of exceptions. If…

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.