Kahn

Kahn v. Wilson

Good Law
120 Cal. 643·1898 Cal. LEXIS 826·53 P. 24
Supreme Court of CaliforniaApril 28, 1898Sac. No. 308California583 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

McFarland, J.

This action was brought to foreclose two certain mortgages. The court below rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff, foreclosing one of the mortgages, and directed that the action abate as to the other mortgage. Hpon motion of the plaintiff the court granted a new trial, and from the order granting a new trial the defendant appealed.

There appears in the transcript a “bill of exceptions on motion for a new trial”; to this there is attached an acknowledgment of service by the counsel for defendant in these words: “Service of above proposed bill of exceptions and motion for a new trial herein in due time is hereby acknowledged”; and there is also attached a certificate of the judge of the lower court “that the above and foregoing bill of exceptions is true and correct, and the same is hereby settled and allowed as true and correct.” There is no copy of the notice of the motion for a new trial in the record, and the sole point made by appellant in his opening brief is that the record does not show that any notice of intention to move for a new trial was ever given, nor the grounds for any motion for a new trial, and that therefore the court had no jurisdiction over the motion. This…

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.