People v. Center
Before: McKee
Synopsis
Appeal—Motion fob. New Tbial.—After an adverse decision of a motion for a new trial the moving party has no right to file another motion.
Id.—Id.—When a party gives notice of an intention to move for a new trial, and fails to prosecute his motion in the Court below, in consequence of which his motion is dismissed or denied, he can not be heard to complain of the order on appeal.
Id.—Id.—Statement—Record.—On appeal from such an order, in the absence from the record of an engrossed statement on motion for a new trial, signed and certified hy the Judge, there are no questions of fact to be reviewed.
Id.—Record—Notice—Undertaking.—An appeal can not he taken from parts of two judgments, and from a special order made after judgment, hy one notice of appeal, and on one undertaking on appeal.
Id.—Id—Id.—Id.—Transcript.—An appeal was taken by one notice and undertaking from parts of two judgments and an order made subsequent to judgment, and another appeal, by the same parties, and by another notice and undertaking, from an order denying a new trial, and an order striking from the files a notice of intention to move for a new trial subsequently filed; and there was but one transcript for all the appeals.
Held: Separate and distinct appeals can not be brought to this Court in that way.
McKee, J.: The action in this case was commenced to annul a patent which had been issued on November 11, 1867, by the Governor of the State of California to W. F. Montgomery and three other persons, “ their associates and assigns,” for eighty-nine thousand and odd acres of “swamp and overflowed lands” in Fresno and Kern counties.
Pending the action, the Legislature of the State passed an Act entitled “An Act to provide for determining the rights of parties in certain swamp and overflowed lands in Fresno and Kern counties,” approved March 20, 1878. These lands were those described in the patent which it was sought to have annulled. By the provisions of the Act, any one claiming legal or equitable title to any portion of the lands through the patentees was authorized to appear in the action, at any time within sixty days after the passage of the Act, and assert his claim by way of answer filed in the action; and upon proof that he was a claimant of any portion of the land from any of the patentees, and had expended upon it, in payment of taxes and improvements, “ or otherwise,” to the amount of [193]one dollar per acre, it was made the duty of the Court in which the action was pending, after annulling the patent, to enter a judgment in his favor, which, when entered, entitled him to a patent from the State for the land described in the judgment.
Under this Act, and within sixty days after its passage, between sixty and seventy persons appeared in the action and filed answers, asserting claims to specific portions of the lands involved in the action. Among them C. C. Webb, who is the respondent, and Green and Jackson, who are appellants,, filed answers in which they respectively claimed to have purchased from the patentees that portion of the lands described in the patent as section 7, in township 31 south, range 28 east, Mount Diablo Meridian, and had expended for taxes, improvements, etc., upon it, more than one dollar per acre.
Between these claimants a contest arose, which, after the patent had been annulled by the Court, was tried by the Court without a jury, and resulted in a special decision and judgment in favor of Webb against Green and Jackson. The special finding of facts and conclusions of law were made August 28, 1878, and filed October 11, 1878, and judgment thereon was given November 5, and entered November 9, 1878. A general finding of facts and conclusions of law in favor of the sixty odd persons who had filed answers claiming specific portions of the lands under the Act of the Legislature, were also made and filed September 17, 1878, and a general judgment containing separate judgments in favor of each of them, was filed September 17,1878, and entered November 8, 1878.
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)