Millan

Millan v. Hood

Good Law
1892 Cal. LEXIS 1028·3 Cal. Unrep. 548·30 P. 1107
Supreme Court of CaliforniaSeptember 1, 1892No. 14,756California797 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Vanclief, J.

Action to enforce an alleged trust in land. Judgment for defendant, from which and from an order denying his motion for a new trial the plaintiff appeals.

1. The notice of intention to move for a new trial stated, as the grounds upon which the motion would be made, only insufficiency of the evidence to justify the findings and errors in law committed at the trial. It further stated that the motion would be made “upon a statement of the case.” But the statement of the case, which was thereafter made and allowed by the court, contains no specifications of any particular in which the evidence is insufficient to justify the findings nor of any error in law committed by the court. Therefore, in obedience to section 659 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the trial court must have disregarded the statement, and consequently did not err in denying the motion for a new trial.

2. The plaintiff demurred to the following addition to the answer of defendant, on the ground that the same does not' state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the plaintiff: “And further answering, and for a cross-complaint, the defendant avers: (1) That he now is, and for a long time prior to the…

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.