Hirsch v. All Persons

159 P. 712, 173 Cal. 268, 1916 Cal. LEXIS 404
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedAugust 7, 1916
DocketS. F. No. 7985.
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 159 P. 712 (Hirsch v. All Persons) 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
Hirsch v. All Persons, 159 P. 712, 173 Cal. 268, 1916 Cal. LEXIS 404 (Cal. 1916).

Opinion

HENSHAW, J.

This is a motion to dismiss an appeal taken from the order of the court granting a new trial, which order was made and given after the amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure abolishing the right of appeal from an order granting a new trial saving “in an action or proceeding tried by a jury, where such trial by jury is a matter of right,” etc. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 963), and further providing that upon appeal from a judgment the court may review “any order on motion for a new trial.” (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 956.) Respondent on this motion relies upon the case of San Francisco etc. Railways v. Superior Court of Alameda County, 172 Cal. 541, [157 Pac. 604]. But in that case it is declared, touching the right of an appeal from such an order, in the following language: “It has been held that as to the right of appeal from such an order (granting or refusing to grant a new trial) it is the condition of the law at the time of the denial of the motion for a new trial that controls, regardless of whether the proceeding for a new trial was initiated prior to or subsequent to the change in the law.” To the support of this language is cited Woodruff v. Colyear, 172 Cal. 440, [156 Pac. 475], where it is declared that the statute denying a right of appeal from an order denying a new trial is necessarily applicable in every ease where such order was made- subsequent to the date of the taking effect of the amendment. “It is the condition of the law at the time of the making of the order that controls” the right of appeal.

The motion to dismiss is therefore granted.

Sloss, J., Shaw, J., Lorigan, J., Melvin, J., and Lawlor, J., concurred.

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

Related

Powers v. City of Richmond
893 P.2d 1160 (California Supreme Court, 1995)
Beal v. Superior Court
31 P.2d 223 (California Court of Appeal, 1934)
Treiman v. Kennon
139 Cal. App. 796 (Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California, 1934)
Hastain & Purman, Inc. v. Superior Court
300 P. 966 (California Supreme Court, 1931)
McManaman v. Vickrey
183 P. 229 (California Court of Appeal, 1919)
Shattuck v. Palmer
183 P. 259 (California Court of Appeal, 1919)
Stouffer v. Eymann
183 P. 210 (California Court of Appeal, 1919)
Hockerston v. Hockerston
182 P. 325 (California Court of Appeal, 1919)
Watt v. Bekins Van & Storage Co.
171 P. 832 (California Court of Appeal, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
159 P. 712, 173 Cal. 268, 1916 Cal. LEXIS 404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hirsch-v-all-persons-cal-1916.