Gollin v. Lyle

California Supreme Court

Gollin v. Lyle

31 P. 456, 3 Cal. Unrep. 621, 1892 Cal. LEXIS 1046

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 12, 1892

DocketNo. 14,294

StatusPublished

This text of 31 P. 456 (Gollin v. Lyle) 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

Gollin v. Lyle, 31 P. 456, 3 Cal. Unrep. 621, 1892 Cal. LEXIS 1046 (Cal. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

McFARLAND, J.

This is an action of ejectment. The defendant pleaded the statute of limitations. The jury found in favor of defendant; and the court below, upon motion regularly made by plaintiff, granted a new trial. The defendant appeals from the order granting a new trial. The motion was made upon the ground, among others, of the “insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict”; and that was the main ground upon which the motion was granted, as appears from an opinion delivered by the trial judge. In such a case the trial court has a wide discretion, and we do not disturb its rulings, unless it clearly appears to us that such discretion has been abused; and it is quite clear that there was no such abuse of discretion in the case at bar.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

We concur: Sharpstein, J.; De Haven, J.

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

McFARLAND, J.

This is an action of ejectment. The defendant pleaded the statute of limitations. The jury found in favor of defendant; and the court below, upon motion regularly made by plaintiff, granted a new trial. The defendant appeals from the order granting a new trial. The motion was made upon the ground, among others, of the “insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict”; and that was the main ground upon which the motion was granted, as appears from an opinion delivered by the trial judge. In such a case the trial court has a wide discretion, and we do not disturb its rulings, unless it clearly appears to us that such discretion has been abused; and it is quite clear that there was no such abuse of discretion in the case at bar.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

We concur: Sharpstein, J.; De Haven, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 P. 456, 3 Cal. Unrep. 621, 1892 Cal. LEXIS 1046, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gollin-v-lyle-cal-1892.