Kelly v. Mack
Before: McKinstry
Synopsis
Specification of Reasons -why New Tbial should be Gbanted.—In an application for a new trial on the ground that the evidence does not justify the decision, a specification that the evidence is insufficient to justify the judgment, is not sufficient.
Idem.—In such case a specification that the cause of action set forth in the complaint is not sustained by the evidence, is not sufficient.
Possession of Public Land.—One who has public land enclosed by a fence, and has a shed on it, and cuts hay on it, but does not reside on it, has possession.
Evidence of Title.—Proof that a party had the actual possession of land is prima facie evidence of title.
By the Court, McKinstry, J.: The bill of exceptions contains no specification of errors of law. The appeal is from an order denying a new trial.
As to the specifications of the particulars, wherein the evidence is alleged to be insufficient: The last two of the attempted specifications are too general, being merely a statement that the evidence is insufficient to justify the decree. Nor is the second more precise, since it alleges, in effect, that the cause of action set forth in the complaint is not sustained by the evidence. The first point is not well taken. The proof is sufficient that plaintiff had the actual possession of the land, and this prima facie established his ownership.
Judgment and order affirmed.
Mr. Justice Niles did not express an opinion.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)