Duncan v. Times-Mirror Co.
This text of 120 Cal. 402 (Duncan v. Times-Mirror Co.) 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.
Opinion
A motion is made to dismiss the appeal from an order denying a motion for a new trial, upon the ground that the notice of intention to move for a new trial was fatally defective. The notice recited that the motion would be made upon a statement or bill of exceptions, and upon the records of the court and upon the minutes of the court. In Hart v. Kimball, 72 Cal. 283, it was held that a motion for a new trial can be made upon a statement of the case, notwithstanding that the notice designated that the motion would be made upon a statement and [403]*403upon the minutes of the court and a bill of exceptions. In the present case, the motion was actually based upon a bill of exceptions. The notice of intention stated that it would be based upon the records of the court and the minutes, and either a statement or bill of exceptions. We think the notice is a substantial compliance with the statute.
Motion denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
120 Cal. 402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duncan-v-times-mirror-co-cal-1898.