Caney v. Silverthorne

California Supreme Court

Caney v. Silverthorne

9 Cal. 67

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1858

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 9 Cal. 67 (Caney v. Silverthorne) 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

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

Pincite

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]*68limited 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]*68limited 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 Cal. 67, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caney-v-silverthorne-cal-1858.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack