Bate v. Miller

63 Cal. 233, 1883 Cal. LEXIS 415
California Supreme Court·Decided March 7, 1883·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgment and orders must be affirmed. The findings are sufficient to sustain the judgment and the statement on motion for new trial contains no sufficient specification of particulars wherein the findings are unsustained by the evidence. There is no affidavit in support of the alleged [234]*234grounds of surprise and newly discovered evidence, which by statute is made essential to the granting of a motion for ■ new trial on either of those grounds. And with respect to the plaintiff’s motion to “amend and make additional findings,” it is sufficient to say that this motion was made long after the entry of the judgment and the denial of the motion for a new trial.

Judgment and orders affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bate v. Miller, 63 Cal. 233, 1883 Cal. LEXIS 415 (Cal. 1883).

63 Cal. 233 (Bate v. Miller) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lewetzow v. Sapiro
188 Cal. App. 2d 841 (California Court of Appeal, 1961)
Thompson v. Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance
38 N.E. 796 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1894)
County of Los Angeles v. Lankershim
35 P. 153 (California Supreme Court, 1893)
Heinlen v. Heildron
12 P. 673 (California Supreme Court, 1887)