Strange v. Strange

RICHARDS, J.

The appellant prosecutes herein three appeals—one from an order denying appellant’s motion for leave to amend her noticp of intention to move for a new trial; one from an order denying appellant’s motion for a new trial, and one from the judgment. They will be considered in the above order.

The order of the trial court refusing appellant leave to amend her notice of intention to move for a new trial was based on the objection that appellant’s notice of motion for leave to amend her notice of intention was served and filed thirty-three days after appellant had duly received written notice of the entry of judgment, and twenty-one days after appellant’s notice of intention to move for a new trial had been served and filed; and that since by said motion for leave to amend her notice of intention to move for a new trial appellant sought to supply specifications of the particulars in which the evidence was alleged to be insufficient, and also specifications of errors of law upon which the appellant would rely, and both of which specifications were entirely omitted from her original notice, the proffered amendment came too late, and that the court had no longer jurisdiction to grant leave to amend her notice of intention to move for a new trial in the respects sought by said motion.

It is to be noted that appellant’s motion for leave to amend was not made upon the ground of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. That the court committed no error in sustaining the respondent’s objection and refusing appellant leave to amend her notice of intention to move for a new trial in the respects indicated, would seem to be the settled law of this state.

(Union Collection Co.

v.

Oliver,

162 Cal. 755, [124 Pac. 435];

Little

v.

Jacks,

67 Cal. 165, [7 Pac. 449];

Parker

v.

Doray,

98 Cal. 317, [33 Pac.

118]; Salisbury

v.

Burr,