Brotherton v. Hart
11 Cal. 405
Opinion
Field, J., concurring.
In this case the parties, by stipulation, consented that the motion for a new trial should be denied. Having consented to the order, they cannot now question its correctness. (Meerholtz v. Sessions, 9 Cal. 277.)
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Brotherton v. Hart, 11 Cal. 405 (Cal. 1858).
11 Cal. 405 (Brotherton v. Hart) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Gallegos v. Kia Motors CA4/3
California Court of Appeal, 2014
Gibson v. Berryman
111 P. 926 (California Court of Appeal, 1910)
Hibernia Savings Etc. Soc. v. Waymire
92 P. 645 (California Supreme Court, 1907)
City & County San Francisco v. Certain Real Estate
42 Cal. 513 (California Supreme Court, 1872)
Mecham v. McKay
37 Cal. 154 (California Supreme Court, 1869)