More

More v. Massini

Good Law
1 Cal. Unrep. 655
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJanuary 12, 1871No. 2542California534 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Wallace, J.

— We cannot disturb the order, of the court below denying a new trial. The defendant has not pursued the steps required by the statute to enable us to review the proceeding of the court below in that respect.

The action was tried before the court sitting without a jury and findings were filed. Under section 195 of the Practice Act the defendant, if he intended to move for a new trial, was bound to file with the clerk of the court below a statement, or affidavit, within a prescribed time. This “statement” is, of course, a proposed statement, and one which is the subject of amendment and of settlement by the judge thereafter, if not agreed to by the adverse party. No such proposed statement was ever filed in this ease. A proposed statement, which was never placed on file at any time, as such, was, however, settled and certified by the judge of the court below on March 20th, filed March 23d, and a copy of the settled and certified statement was left at the residence of the respondent More, in the hands of his wife. The statute does not require service of a statement on motion for new trial to be made upon the opposite party or upon his counsel. Such service, when required at all, is…

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.