Duncan v. Times-Mirror Co.

52 P. 652, 120 Cal. 402, 1898 Cal. LEXIS 778
California Supreme Court·Decided March 25, 1898·No. L. A. No. 412·Published

Opinion

THE COURT.

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] upon 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

Duncan v. Times-Mirror Co., 52 P. 652, 120 Cal. 402, 1898 Cal. LEXIS 778 (Cal. 1898).

52 P. 652 (Duncan v. Times-Mirror Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hart v. Kimball
13 P. 852 (California Supreme Court, 1887)