Grant v. White (1856) · DecisionDepot

Grant v. White

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1856Published

Before: Heydenfeldt

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a defendant cannot object to a lack of notice regarding a motion for a new trial based on a change in counsel unless a formal substitution of counsel has been filed in accordance with the statute.

Issues

Whether service of notice on former counsel is invalid when the attorney-client relationship has ceased but no formal substitution of counsel has been filed.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“To avail the defendant of this objection, there should have been a regular substitution of counsel in the mode pointed out by the statute.”

Synopsis

Where a party changes his attorneys in an action, and there is no regular substitution of attorneys as pointed out by statute, notices may be served on the attorney of record.

Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt delivered the opinion of the Court. Mr. Chief Justice Murray concurred.

The only point raised by the Bill of Exceptions is the want of proper notice by defendant’s counsel of the time for argument of the motion for a new trial. The notice, it seems, was served on Mr. Kewen after [56]his connection with the case had ceased, and the defence of it had heen turned over to Mr. Crockett. To avail the defendant of this objection, there should have been a regular substitution of counsel in the mode pointed out by the statute.

There is no statement of the case which will enable us to consider the other assignments of error. Judgment affirmed.

Grant v. White

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief