Hershey v. Kness

16 P. 548, 75 Cal. 115, 1888 Cal. LEXIS 489
California Supreme Court·Decided February 14, 1888·No. No. 12240·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Hayne, C.

All the appellant’s specifications were stricken from the transcript, for the reason that they were mere interpolations, and not a part of the statement as settled by the judge of the court below. This took away all right to be heard on the motion for new trial.

The appellant’s objections to the sufficiency of the complaint are without merit.

We therefore advise that the judgment and order be affirmed.

Foote, C., and Belcher, C. 0., concurred.

The Court.

For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment and order are affirmed.

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

Hershey v. Kness, 16 P. 548, 75 Cal. 115, 1888 Cal. LEXIS 489 (Cal. 1888).

16 P. 548 (Hershey v. Kness) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Fawkes v. Reynolds
211 P. 449 (California Supreme Court, 1922)
Leonard v. Shaw
45 P. 1012 (California Supreme Court, 1896)
State v. Duncan
35 P. 117 (Washington Supreme Court, 1893)