McMahon

At the hearing in the court below of the defendants’ motion for a new trial, which was made upon the minutes of the court, plaintiff objected to the defendants being heard, and asked that the motion be denied upon the ground that no proper notice of the motion had been given, in that the notice of motion was not signed by the attorney of record of defendants in the cause. The judge reserved his ruling on the objection, stating that he would consider and determine the same in disposing of the motion. Subsequently he made an order denying the motion for a new trial, from which order defendants have appealed; and plaintiff, having preserved his said objection in the settlement of the statement, now renews the objection in this court, and asks that the order denying a new trial be affirmed upon that ground, without inquiry into the merits. If *590 the objection is well taken, this would seem to be the proper practice. (Gumpel v. Castagnetto, 97 Cal. 16 ; Estate of Ryer, 110 Cal. 556 .)

Gr. B. Montgomery was the attorney of record for the defendants in the court below. He alone signed the answer. The first trial resulted in a judgment for defendants. Plaintiff moved for a new trial,…