Hammel v. Stone

California Supreme Court

Hammel v. Stone

14 P. 675, 2 Cal. Unrep. 785

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 15, 1887

DocketNo. 12,045

StatusPublished

This text of 14 P. 675 (Hammel v. Stone) 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

Hammel v. Stone, 14 P. 675, 2 Cal. Unrep. 785 (Cal. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

FOOTE, C.

This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial, made by a judge other than the one who presided at the trial of the cause. The order was made upon the ground that the record did not show sufficient evidence to support one of the findings of facts. Every intendment prevails in favor of the correctness of such an order, made in the manner above specified, and such intendments must be overcome by an affirmative showing of error: Blum v. Sunol, 63 Cal. 341. It is the well-settled rule of this court that unless the court below is shown to have abused that sound, legal discretion which it is called upon to exercise in relation to such a matter, its order in the premises will not be disturbed: Savage v. Sweeney, 63 Cal. 340; Breckenridge v. Crocker, 68 Cal. 403, 404, 9 Pac. 426, and cases there cited.

We perceive no abuse of that discretion in the present instance, and the order should be affirmed.

We concur: Belcher, C. C.; Hayne, C.

By 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

FOOTE, C.

This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial, made by a judge other than the one who presided at the trial of the cause. The order was made upon the ground that the record did not show sufficient evidence to support one of the findings of facts. Every intendment prevails in favor of the correctness of such an order, made in the manner above specified, and such intendments must be overcome by an affirmative showing of error: Blum v. Sunol, 63 Cal. 341. It is the well-settled rule of this court that unless the court below is shown to have abused that sound, legal discretion which it is called upon to exercise in relation to such a matter, its order in the premises will not be disturbed: Savage v. Sweeney, 63 Cal. 340; Breckenridge v. Crocker, 68 Cal. 403, 404, 9 Pac. 426, and cases there cited.

We perceive no abuse of that discretion in the present instance, and the order should be affirmed.

We concur: Belcher, C. C.; Hayne, C.

By the COURT.—For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the order is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 P. 675, 2 Cal. Unrep. 785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hammel-v-stone-cal-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack