Hart v. Burnett

In an action pending in the Superior Court of the City of San Francisco, plaintiff had verdict and judgment. Defendant filed a statement to he used on motion for a new trial. Plaintiff filed and served certain amendments to the statement, but gave no notice within two days of the settlement of statement before the Judge. The Court made an order, directing the motion for a new trial to be heard on the twenty-ninth day of April, 1857. On that day, the Court adjourned the hearing of the motion to the thirtieth, which was the last day of the existence of that Court. On that day, a motion for a new trial was denied. On the next day, papers and records of said Court were transferred to the Fourth District Court. On the twenty-seventh day of May, 1857, Fourth District Court made an order for the plaintiff to show cause why the order of the Superior Court denying a new trial should not be set aside, and on the day fixed to show cause why, District Court set aside said order of the Superior Court: Meld, that the order of Superior Court granting a stay of proceedings had the effect of extending the jurisdiction of the Court, and that District Court had the right to make the order.

An order denying a motion for a new trial, when there is no statement settled on file, is erroneous.