Chielovich

Action to quiet title by plaintiff against Krauss. Roth intervened. Demurrers were interposed to the answer and complaint in intervention, and were both overruled. Judgment was then rendered against the plaintiff, and his motion for a new trial denied. From the judgment and order he appealed. The point is made by respondents that the court erred in settling and considering the statement on motion for a new trial against their objection, and that it should not be considered on appeal. The ground of the objection urged is that the court set aside its own rules, which required, in all cases where an extension of time to prepare, serve, and file such statement was granted, that as a condition precedent to its validity the order made in the premises should be served on opposing counsel, or the party he represented, which course was not taken in this case.

A rule of that description is intended to meet the ends of justice, and a court can, in the exercise of a proper and legal *644 discretion, set it aside: People v. Williams, 32 Cal. 282 -289; Pickett v. Wallace, 54 Cal. 147, 148 . In the absence of anything in the record to show what reason controlled the action of the court, as in…