Hill v. Weisler (1874) · DecisionDepot

Hill v. Weisler

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

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1874 No. No. 2,705Published

Before: Wallace

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment and order because the record failed to show a valid notice of appeal and the appellant failed to sufficiently specify any errors of law or fact.

Issues

Whether the record sufficiently establishes an appeal from the judgment or the order denying a new trial.
Whether the appellant sufficiently specified errors of law or fact to warrant a new trial.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“If errors of either law or fact occurred which would have entitled the defendant to a new trial, they are not sufficiently specified within any recognized rule of practice—even the most liberal in its character.”

“Judgment and order affirmed.”

Synopsis

Aepexii.—When the notice of appeal is not inserted in the transcript, but in place thereof there is a stipulation that a notice of appeal was filed and served, and there is also a statement on motion for a new trial, and an order denying the same, the Court cannot determine whether the appeal was taken from the judgment or order denying a new trial.

Statement on Motion foe a New Tbial.—A statement in support of a motion for a new trial must specify the particular errors of the law relied on, and the particular reasons why the verdict is alleged to be contrary to the evidence.

By the Court, Wallace, C. J.: 1. It is impossible to determine, from the record before us, whether an appeal was taken from the order denying a new trial or from the judgment, or both. The transcript contains the judgment and the order denying a new trial. Ho notice of appeal and no evidence of service of such notice is shown; the only stipulation upon this point is “that notices of new trial and appeal, and appeal bond were duly served and filed and made in time.”

2. If the appeal is to be regarded as taken from the judgment alone, it is sufficient to say that we discover no error upon the judgment-roll, as found in the record.

3. If the appeal was taken from the order denying a new trial, it is apparent that that order is not before us for examination. If errors of either law or fact occurred which would have entitled the defendant to a new trial, they are not sufficiently specified within any recognized rule of practice—even the most liberal in its character.

Judgment and order affirmed. Remittitur forthwith.

Neither Mr. Justice Rhodes nor Mr. Justice Niles expressed an opinion.

Hill v. Weisler

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief