Ben Lomond Wine Co. v. Sladky

California Supreme Court

Ben Lomond Wine Co. v. Sladky

71 P. 178, 7 Cal. Unrep. 110, 1903 Cal. LEXIS 943

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 3, 1903

DocketS. F. No. 2468

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 71 P. 178 (Ben Lomond Wine Co. v. Sladky) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ben Lomond Wine Co. v. Sladky, 71 P. 178, 7 Cal. Unrep. 110, 1903 Cal. LEXIS 943 (Cal. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This action was tried before a jury, and a verdict rendered in favor of the defendant. A motion for a new trial was granted, from which the present appeal has been taken.

One of the grounds for the motion was the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict, and the order granting a new trial, being general in its terms, must, under the well-established rule, be affirmed.

The contention of the appellant that because the court, at the time it made the order, filed an opinion setting forth certain reasons for its action, the consideration of the appeal is limited to those reasons, is untenable: Newman v. Overland Pac. Ry. Co., 132 Cal. 73, 64 Pac. 110. As said in that case: “The order which is entered in the minutes is the only record of the court’s action, and is to be measured by its terms, and not by the reasons which the court may give for it.” Objection is also made to the form in which-the specifications of insufficiency of evidence are set forth in the statement, but, as was said in Bledsoe v. Decrow, 132 Cal. 312, 64 Pac. 397: “The specifications as to the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the findings resulted in getting all the evidence in the record, and seems to have informed defendant’s attorneys as to the respects wherein the evidence was alleged to be insufficient.” It is recited in the statement herein at the close, “The foregoing comprises all the testimony given in this action”: See, also, Churchill v. Flournoy, 127 Cal. 355, 59 Pac. 791; Standard Quicksilver Co. v. Habishaw, 132 Cal. 115, 64 Pac. 113.

The order is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This action was tried before a jury, and a verdict rendered in favor of the defendant. A motion for a new trial was granted, from which the present appeal has been taken.

One of the grounds for the motion was the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict, and the order granting a new trial, being general in its terms, must, under the well-established rule, be affirmed.

The contention of the appellant that because the court, at the time it made the order, filed an opinion setting forth certain reasons for its action, the consideration of the appeal is limited to those reasons, is untenable: Newman v. Overland Pac. Ry. Co., 132 Cal. 73, 64 Pac. 110. As said in that case: “The order which is entered in the minutes is the only record of the court’s action, and is to be measured by its terms, and not by the reasons which the court may give for it.” Objection is also made to the form in which-the specifications of insufficiency of evidence are set forth in the statement, but, as was said in Bledsoe v. Decrow, 132 Cal. 312, 64 Pac. 397: “The specifications as to the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the findings resulted in getting all the evidence in the record, and seems to have informed defendant’s attorneys as to the respects wherein the evidence was alleged to be insufficient.” It is recited in the statement herein at the close, “The foregoing comprises all the testimony given in this action”: See, also, Churchill v. Flournoy, 127 Cal. 355, 59 Pac. 791; Standard Quicksilver Co. v. Habishaw, 132 Cal. 115, 64 Pac. 113.

The order is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 P. 178, 7 Cal. Unrep. 110, 1903 Cal. LEXIS 943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ben-lomond-wine-co-v-sladky-cal-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack