Mann v. Haley

45 Cal. 63
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1872·No. No. 3,334·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

By the Court:

A judgment was originally rendered in the action on the 11th day of October, 1870. As the result of a motion for a new trial, a modification of this judgment was directed by the'Court below on March 30th, 1871. . On March 5th, 1872, an appeal was taken “from the judgment * * * entered * ■* ■* on the 30th day of March, A. D. 1871.” Objection is now made by the respondent that the appeal, having been taken more than one year after the 11th day of October, 1870, is too late, and must be dismissed on that ground. The modification of a judgment, made as the result of a motion for a new trial, is- in effect the rendition of a new judgment, and a party desiring to have it reviewed may appeal at any time within one year after its rendition.

Motion to dismiss the appeal denied, and cause continued, with leave to the respondent to suggest a diminution of the record, if he be so advised.

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

Mann v. Haley, 45 Cal. 63 (Cal. 1872).

45 Cal. 63 (Mann v. Haley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

California MacHinery & Supply Co. v. University City Syndicate, Inc.
39 P.2d 853 (California Court of Appeal, 1934)
Gury v. Gury
300 P. 81 (California Court of Appeal, 1931)
Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Co. v. Brown
233 N.W. 10 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1930)
Forrester v. Cook
292 P. 206 (Utah Supreme Court, 1930)
McConville v. Superior Court
248 P. 553 (California Court of Appeal, 1926)
Hayes v. Silver Creek & Panoche Land & Water Co.
68 P. 704 (California Supreme Court, 1902)
Bixby v. Bent
59 Cal. 522 (California Supreme Court, 1881)