Goldstone v. Sperling (1870) · DecisionDepot

Goldstone v. Sperling

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

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1870 No. No. 2,261Published

Before: Rhodes

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A defendant who fails to retain new counsel or appear in person after being notified of his attorney's withdrawal due to nonpayment of fees is guilty of gross negligence and is not entitled to a new trial based on surprise.

Issues

Whether a defendant's failure to appear or retain new counsel after his attorney withdraws constitutes gross negligence precluding a new trial based on surprise.

Disposition. Order reversed and cause remanded.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“This was gross negligence on his part, and he was not entitled to a new trial, on the ground that he was surprised by the nonattendance of his attorney, when the cause was called for trial.”

Synopsis

New Teial.—Sdbpbise.—Where an attorney has notified his client that unless his fees are paid he will abandon his case, and the client has failed to pay the fees, he is not entitled to a new trial on the ground of surprise by the nonattendance of his attorney at the trial.

Rhodes, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court:

The defendant was notified by his attorney, that unless his fees were paid, he would not further conduct the defense to the action; and the fees not being paid, he gave no further attention to the case. The defendant neither retained another attorney nor appeared in the action in person. This was gross negligence on his part, and he was not entitled to a new trial, on the ground that he was surprised by the nonattendance of his attorney, when the cause was called for trial.

Order reversed and cause remanded.

Goldstone v. Sperling

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief