Heihn v. Stansbury

California Supreme Court

Heihn v. Stansbury

12 Cal. 412

DecidedJanuary 15, 1859

StatusPublished

This text of 12 Cal. 412 (Heihn v. Stansbury) 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

Heihn v. Stansbury, 12 Cal. 412 (Cal. 1859).

Pincite

Opinion

Terry, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court—Baldwin, J., concurring.

The appeal from the order denying a new trial was not taken within the time prescribed by law, and cannot be considered by the Court.

Upon the appeal from the judgment, no statement was filed until a year after judgment was rendered; therefore, we can only consider the judgment roll, which discloses no error.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Terry, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court—Baldwin, J., concurring.

The appeal from the order denying a new trial was not taken within the time prescribed by law, and cannot be considered by the Court.

Upon the appeal from the judgment, no statement was filed until a year after judgment was rendered; therefore, we can only consider the judgment roll, which discloses no error.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 Cal. 412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heihn-v-stansbury-cal-1859.