Gage

Gage v. Downey

Good Law
1888 Cal. LEXIS 978·3 Cal. Unrep. 7·19 P. 113
Supreme Court of CaliforniaAugust 20, 1888No. 12,377California5,576 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Thornton, J.

We see no ground to dismiss the appeals herein or either of them. Admitting that the notice of intention to move for a new trial is no part of the record, because not made such by bill of exceptions or statement, still it is evidence that the motion was submitted and denied by the court, at which time the respondents (defendants in the court below) were represented by their attorney, Levi Chase, Esq. This is shown by the order denying the motion for a new trial, entered in the minutes of the court on the 29th of August, 1887, which is as follows: “The defendants being present by L. Chase, Esq., their attorney, the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial being now submitted is at this time denied by the court.” The record shows no objection to the submission of this motion on the ground that no notice so to move was served and filed in time. Under these circumstances, it would be manifestly unjust to hold that the court below did not acquire jurisdiction of the motion, or to dismiss the appeal from the order denying the motion for a new trial. Every intendment sustains the action of the court. The failure to object, and the action of the court in passing on the motion and not dismissing…

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.