Crooks v. Miller

California Supreme Court

Crooks v. Miller

26 P. 615, 89 Cal. 35, 1891 Cal. LEXIS 762

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedMay 4, 1891

DocketNo. 13052

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 26 P. 615 (Crooks v. Miller) 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

Crooks v. Miller, 26 P. 615, 89 Cal. 35, 1891 Cal. LEXIS 762 (Cal. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Fitzgerald, C.

— Appeal from an order of the superior court of Alameda County granting a new trial.

This is an action of ejectment which was tried by the court without a jury, and judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff. The order appealed from states no ground upon which the motion for a new trial was granted. But the record shows that the motion was made and urged upon the ground, among others, “ that the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision.” We have reached the opinion, after reading the evidence attentively, that it must have been upon this ground that the court below based its action in granting the motion; and as there is a substantial conflict in the evidence, the granting of a new trial was clearly within the discretion of the court.

Every presumption will be indulged in favor of the proper exercise, by the court below, of its judicial discre[36]*36tion in granting a new trial upon the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to support the decision. And as it is the well-settled rule of this court not to interfere unless there has been a manifest abuse of discretion, and as no such abuse is disclosed by the record as would justify such interference, it follows that the order should be affirmed.

Foote, C., and Temple, C., concurred.

The Court. — For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the order is affirmed.

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

Fitzgerald, C.

— Appeal from an order of the superior court of Alameda County granting a new trial.

This is an action of ejectment which was tried by the court without a jury, and judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff. The order appealed from states no ground upon which the motion for a new trial was granted. But the record shows that the motion was made and urged upon the ground, among others, “ that the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision.” We have reached the opinion, after reading the evidence attentively, that it must have been upon this ground that the court below based its action in granting the motion; and as there is a substantial conflict in the evidence, the granting of a new trial was clearly within the discretion of the court.

Every presumption will be indulged in favor of the proper exercise, by the court below, of its judicial discre[36]*36tion in granting a new trial upon the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to support the decision. And as it is the well-settled rule of this court not to interfere unless there has been a manifest abuse of discretion, and as no such abuse is disclosed by the record as would justify such interference, it follows that the order should be affirmed.

Foote, C., and Temple, C., concurred.

The Court. — For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the order is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 P. 615, 89 Cal. 35, 1891 Cal. LEXIS 762, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crooks-v-miller-cal-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack