Ryer v. Hicks (1865) · DecisionDepot

Ryer v. Hicks

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

California Supreme Court Nov 7, 1865 No. No. 642Published

Before: Currey, Rhodes, Sanderson, Sawyer, Shatter

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment, finding that the evidence was sufficient to support the lower court's findings and that the appellant failed to specify other grounds for a new trial as required by the Practice Act.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to justify the findings and judgment.
Whether the court may consider points not specified in the statement on motion for new trial.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We think the evidence supports the finding and judgment.”

“The ground that the evidence is insufficient to justify the finding is the only one specified in the statement on motion for new trial, as required by section 195 of the Practice Act.”

Synopsis

APPEAL from Fifth Judicial District, San Joaquin County.

SAWYER, J. We think the evidence supports the finding and judgment. The ground that the evidence is insufficient to justify the finding is the only one specified in the statement on motion for new trial, as required by section 195 of the Practice Act. For this reason we are precluded from a discussion of the other points made by appellants: Hutton v. Reed, 25 Cal. 478; Burnett v. Pacheco, 27 Cal. 410. We have, however, examined the elaborate brief of appellant, and if the questions raised were before us, we think there is nothing in them that would justify a reversal of the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

We concur: Sanderson, C. J.; Shatter, J.; Currey, J.; Rhodes, J.

Ryer v. Hicks

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief