Caney v. Silverthorne

California Supreme Court

Caney v. Silverthorne

9 Cal. 67

California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1858·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Burnett, J., delivered the opinion of the Court—TERRy, C. J., concurring.

The defendant, having failed to give notice of his intention to move for a new trial, or to file his statement within the time [68] limited by the statute, lost his right to move for a new trial. (Practice Act, § 195.)

There is no statement on appeal; the statement for new trial not having been filed in time, is not properly a part of the record. We can only look at the judgment-roll; which, being regular on its face, judgment is affirmed, with costs.

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

Burnett, J., delivered the opinion of the Court—TERRy, C. J., concurring.

The defendant, having failed to give notice of his intention to move for a new trial, or to file his statement within the time [68] limited by the statute, lost his right to move for a new trial. (Practice Act, § 195.)

There is no statement on appeal; the statement for new trial not having been filed in time, is not properly a part of the record. We can only look at the judgment-roll; which, being regular on its face, judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Caney v. Silverthorne, 9 Cal. 67 (Cal. 1858).

Pincite

9 Cal. 67 (Caney v. Silverthorne) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related