Kerr v. Kerr

California Supreme Court

Kerr v. Kerr

13 P. 654, 2 Cal. Unrep. 753, 1887 Cal. LEXIS 839

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedApril 26, 1887

DocketNo. 9521

StatusPublished

This text of 13 P. 654 (Kerr v. Kerr) 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

Kerr v. Kerr, 13 P. 654, 2 Cal. Unrep. 753, 1887 Cal. LEXIS 839 (Cal. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

BELCHER, C. C.

This is an appeal by the defendant from an order granting the plaintiff a new trial. The motion was made and granted upon the ground that the evidence did not justify the decision and judgment. It is settled law in this state that a motion for new trial, made upon the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict, or other decision, is addressed to the sound legal discretion of the court, and an order granting a new trial on such ground will not be reversed unless it appear that there has been a manifest abuse of that discretion: Phelps v. Union C. M. Co., 39 Cal. 407; Pierce v. Schaden, 55 Cal. 406; Bronner v. Wetzlar, 55 Cal. 419. In this ease we see no such abuse of discretion as would warrant a reversal of the order, and it should therefore be affirmed.

We concur: Searls, C.; Foote, 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

BELCHER, C. C.

This is an appeal by the defendant from an order granting the plaintiff a new trial. The motion was made and granted upon the ground that the evidence did not justify the decision and judgment. It is settled law in this state that a motion for new trial, made upon the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict, or other decision, is addressed to the sound legal discretion of the court, and an order granting a new trial on such ground will not be reversed unless it appear that there has been a manifest abuse of that discretion: Phelps v. Union C. M. Co., 39 Cal. 407; Pierce v. Schaden, 55 Cal. 406; Bronner v. Wetzlar, 55 Cal. 419. In this ease we see no such abuse of discretion as would warrant a reversal of the order, and it should therefore be affirmed.

We concur: Searls, C.; Foote, C.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 P. 654, 2 Cal. Unrep. 753, 1887 Cal. LEXIS 839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kerr-v-kerr-cal-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack