Sprigg

Sprigg v. Barber

Good Law
122 Cal. 573·1898 Cal. LEXIS 635·55 P. 419
Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 7, 1898L. A. No. 311California2,333 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Chipman, J.

1. Respondent submits, in limine, “that the record fails to disclose for review, either on the appeal from the judgment or from the order, any question arising out of any proceedings upon the trial, outside of the judgment-roll; for the reason that the statement specifies no ground of alleged insufficiency of evidence, or of alleged errors of law argued before the court for the new trial.”

Judgment was entered March 20, 1896, and filed March 21, 1896. On March 28th plaintiff served notice of motion for a new trial. The transcript contains what purport to be minutes of the court, to show that on April 10th, the parties being present, plaintiff by his attorneys and defendant in person, plaintiff moved the court to set aside the decision rendered March 20th, wherein judgment was given, and to grant plaintiff a new trial upon the grounds stated in the notice. The motion was made upon the minutes of the court, the record in the case, and evidence taken. Motion was denied, and plaintiff excepted and served notice of appeal April 17th. This part of the record (except notice of appeal) is not authenticated in any manner except by the cleric’s certificate at the end of the statement, and…

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.