Johnson v. Muir (1872) · DecisionDepot

Johnson v. Muir

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

California Supreme Court Apr 15, 1872 No. No. 3,191Published

Before: Niles

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that affidavits submitted in support of a motion for a new trial must be identified by the judge or clerk as having been read or referred to at the hearing to be considered on appeal. A mere filing endorsement by the clerk is insufficient for this purpose.

Issues

Whether affidavits filed with the clerk between judgment and the motion hearing are sufficient to support a motion for a new trial without further identification.
Whether a clerk's filing endorsement satisfies the requirement to identify affidavits used at a hearing under the Practice Act.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is evident that a mere ordinary indorsement of filing is not sufficient to identify the papers as having heen used upon the hearing of the motion.”

Synopsis

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifteenth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco.

The Court below denied the defendant’s application for a new trial, and he appealed from the order.

The other facts are stated in the opinion.

By the Court,

Niles, J.: The defendant moved for a new trial on two grounds: .

First—Accident or surprise, which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against.

Second—Error, in the refusal of the Court to continue the ■cause on the application of the defendant.

There is no statement upon motion for new trial. The transcript contains a series of 'affidavits, which appear to. have been filed by the Clerk at various times between the rendition of the judgment and the hearing of the motion.

Under the provisions of section one hundred and ninety-five of the Practice Act a statement is unnecessary when the motion is made upon affidavits only.' But in such case it is required that the affidavits should be identified by the indorsement of the Judge or Clerk, made at the time of [543]the hearing, that they were read or referred to on the hearing.

It is evident that a mere ordinary indorsement of filing is not sufficient to identify the papers as having heen used upon the hearing of the motion. They may have been deposited with the Clerk for other and quite different purposes. We cannot, therefore, consider the affidavits.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Johnson v. Muir

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief