Ford & Sanborn Co. v. Braslan Seed Growers Co.
Before: Chipman
Synopsis
Motion for New Trial—Service of Notice of Intention.—Upon a motion for a new trial the notice of intention must be served upon all adverse parties whose interests would be adversely affected by the granting of the motion to give the court jurisdiction to grant a new trial.
Id.-—Bill of Exceptions—Service Upon All Adverse Parties Required—Affirmance of Order.—The bill of exceptions, to be used on the motion for a new trial, must be served upon all parties adversely interested in the result of the motion, or in the result of an appeal from an order denying the motion, else the appeal from such order must be affirmed.
Id:—New Method op Appeal—Filing op Notice—Service op Notice op Intention and Bill op Exceptions Unchanged.—Notwithstanding the new method of appeal does not require the filed notice of appeal to be served, yet such method does not dispense with the requirement for service of the notice of intention to move for a new trial, and for service of the bill of exceptions to be used thereon, upon all adverse parties.
Id.—Joint Judgment—Appirmance Upon Appeal—Adverse Parties not Served.-—Where the judgment was joint against the appellant and two codefendants, and the appellant claimed upon the trial and also upon appeal that he was not liable, and that the codefendants were the only parties liable, such codefendants were adverse parties, who must be served with the notice of intention to move for a new trial, and with notice of the bill of exceptions to be used thereon, and when there was no such service, and no error appears upon the judgment-roll, the judgment and order denying a new trial must be affirmed.
Id.—Construction op Code Provisions.—Held, that there is nothing confusing or misleading in the provisions of section 650 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended; and that its provisions are not directory so far as relates to the service of notice.
Id.—Adverse Parties not Complaining—Immaterial Fact.—The fact that the adverse parties were not served with the notice, of intention to move for a new trial or with notice of the bill of exceptions, or with notice of the appeal, is not material, since they have had no opportunity to complain. They might be satisfied with a judgment making the appellant jointly liable with them, but might seriously object to having the judgment reversed or so modified as to make them solely liable.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)