Wells

Wells v. Kreyenhagen

Good Law
117 Cal. 329·1897 Cal. LEXIS 662·49 P. 128
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 17, 1897Sac. No. 191California733 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Haynes, J.

The defendants had judgment, and the plaintiff appeals therefrom and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

Respondents object to the consideration of this appeal upon the ground that the record does not show that any of the papers appearing therein have ever been filed or used in the court below—except the notice of intention to move for a new trial and the notice of appeal—and that, as to the notice of intention to move for a new trial, it is not embodied in the statement on motion for a new trial. The record fails to show that either the complaint, answer, findings, or judgment were ever filed in the court below, nor is there any evidence in the record that the judgment was ever entered, nor is there any certificate to the papers which would constitute the judgment roll. The statement on motion for a new trial makes no allusion to any notice of intention to move for a new trial, nor is there any evidence that the statement was filed. The transcript purports to contain an order denying the motion for a new trial, but does not show that that order was ever entered, nor does the certificate of the clerk, added to the transcript, show that any of these papers were…

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.