Doherty v. Enterprise Mining Co.
Before: Niles
Synopsis
Oedeb Denying a New Tbiau.—The Supreme Court will not disturb an order of the court below denying a new trial if there is some evidence to support the finding of the court upon which the judgment was entered.
Statement on Motion fob New Tbial.—A specification in a statement on motion for a new trial, that there was no evidence tending to show that the defendant wrongfully entered upon the demanded premises or ejected the plaintiff therefrom, is not sufficient to enable the Court to review the evidence on such point. It only points to the character of the defendant’s entry.
By the Court, Niles, J.: We shall not disturb the order refusing a new trial. There was some evidence tending to show a possession of the premises by the plaintiff’s grantor prior to the entry of the defendant. This was the main fact in controversy and was found by the court in favor of the plaintiff. It is urged by appellant that there was no evidence to support the finding that the defendant entered upon the mining claims in controversy and took possession and withheld possession from the plaintiff. It is a sufficient answer to this objection that the statement upon motion for a new trial contains no specification as to the insufficiency of the evidence in this regard. The only specification upon this subject points to the character and not to the fact of the entry and ouster.
Judgment and order affirmed.
Mr. Chief Justice Wallace 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)