Cochran v. O'Keefe

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1868Published

Before: Sprague

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court erred in granting a new trial because the defendants' objections to the admission of the deed were too vague and failed to specify the grounds upon which they rested at the time of trial.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in granting a new trial based on the admission of a deed into evidence.
Whether the defendants' objections to the evidence were sufficiently specific to be considered on a motion for a new trial.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The objection relied upon as found in the settled statement in this case “ fails to specify the point upon which it rests.””

“To entitle objections to the admission of evidence to notice, “ the party should have laid his finger on the point at the time.””

Synopsis

New Trial—Review of Order Granting same.—Where the grounds of motion for and the order granting or denying a new trial consist alone of alleged errors of law occurring at the trial, this Court will, on appeal from said order, review the proceedings of the Court below, so alleged to have been erroneous, as in other cases where questions of law, and not matters of discretion, are involved.

Evidence—Sufficiency of Objection to Deed.—At the trial, as shown by the settled statement on motion for new trial, plaintiffs introduced in evidence a deed from G. to the u Guatamala Mining Company,” of an interest in the water right in litigation, to which the defendants objected, and stated as grounds of objection “that it was void as a conveyance of title to such property as a ditch or water right because it was not under seal, because it was not acknowledged, as required by law, because no foundation had been laid for its introduction in evidence as a conveyance of title from G., and because the Guatamala Company, as a company, could not take title by bill of sale, even if it was free from legal objection.” The title of the complaint names the plaintiffs as composing the Guatamala Company, which is recognized as true by the answer. The Court below set aside a judgment which had passed for plaintiffs, and granted a new trial on the defendants' motion therefor, and based its decision on the ground that the deed was void for want of a grantee capable of taking under it. Held, first, that the objection as stated failed to state sufficiently the point on which it rested ; second, that, as stated, the objection seems to be that the instrument is void as a conveyance of title to the Guatamala Company because it is a bill of sale, and not for want of a grantee named therein capable of taking; third, that the deed upon its face is not void for the want of a grantee named therein, and said objections do not point to any defect of parties to the instrument.

By the Court, Sprague, J. This is an appeal from an order of the Court below granting the defendants a new trial.

The only ground upon which the order was based, and the only point to which our attention is called by counsel for the respective parties on this appeal, is error of the Court, assigned by respondents as one of the grounds of their motion for a new trial, in admitting as evidence for plaintiffs, against objections of defendants, a deed from O. H. Gallop to the Guatamala Mining Company of the undivided half of the water right in controversy.

As appears by the statement on motion for new trial, the plaintiffs during the progress of the trial offered in evidence a deed from O. H. Gallop to the Guatamala Mining Company of the undivided half of the water right in controversy, to which defendants objected, and stated as ground of objection, “that it was void as a conveyance of title to such property as a ditch or water right, because it was not under seal, and because it was not acknowledged, as required by law, and because no foundation was laid for its introduction in evidence as a conveyance of title from Gallop, and because the Guatamala Company, as a company, could not [557]take title by bill of sale, even if it was free from legal objections.”

The Court below granted the motion for a new trial on the ground that the deed was erroneously admitted in evidence, there being no grantee named therein capable of taking; the deed was void as a conveyance of title, and plaintiffs took nothing by it.

When the motion for a new trial is founded entirely upon alleged errors of law in the proceedings of the Court below, and the order granting or refusing a new trial is based solely upon that ground, this Court will review such action of the Court as in other cases when questions of law, and not matters of discretion, are involved. (O'Brien v. Brady, 28 Cal. 243.) In this case the ground of the motion for a new trial was purely a question of law, and the order of the Court granting a new trial was based solely on the assigned error in admitting in evidence the deed above referred to. The only question, therefore, which this Court is called upon to decide on this appeal from the order of the Court below is, was it error to admit the deed in evidence on behalf of plaintiffs against the objection thereto of defendant, as stated on the trial ?

This Court can only look to the statement as settled by the Court below to determine the character and point of the objection made on the trial to the introduction of proposed evidence. We cannot consult the opinion of the Judge, in passing upon the motion for a new trial, to discover the real point of objection. The objection relied upon as found in the settled statement in this case “ fails to specify the point upon which it rests.” As stated, it seems to imply that the point of objection is, that the instrument is void as a conveyance of title to the Guatamala Company, because it is a bill of sale, not for want of a grantee named therein capable of taking.

Cochran v. O'Keefe

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief