Daggett v. Vanderslice
Before: Foote
Synopsis
Bailment — Action Against Bailee — New Trial.—Where an action was brought to recover the value of certain goods left with a defendant for safekeeping, and the court rendered a judgment in favor of defendant, and afterward granted the plaintiff a new trial, held, upon the facts of the case, that there was no such abuse of the discretion vested in the trial court as would warrant a reversal of the order.
FOOTE, C. This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial. The action was instituted to recover from Vanderslice, the defendant, the value of some silverware left with him for safekeeping. Judgment was rendered for the defendant. The plaintiff then moved for a new trial, which was granted, and from the order made therein this appeal is prosecuted. We perceive no such abuse of the discretion vested in the trial court as would warrant a reversal of the order made in the premises, and in our opinion it should be affirmed.
We concur: Belcher, C. C.; Searls, C.
By the COURT.—Por the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the order is affirmed.
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)