McGoldrick v. Visalia Midway Oil Co.

California Court of Appeal

McGoldrick v. Visalia Midway Oil Co.

208 P. 334, 58 Cal. App. 280, 1922 Cal. App. LEXIS 303

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 22, 1922

DocketCiv. No. 3852.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 208 P. 334 (McGoldrick v. Visalia Midway Oil Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McGoldrick v. Visalia Midway Oil Co., 208 P. 334, 58 Cal. App. 280, 1922 Cal. App. LEXIS 303 (Cal. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

WORKS, J.

This is an action for damages for personal injuries and was tried without a jury, with the result that judgment went for defendant. Upon motion by plaintiff the court made its order granting a new trial of the cause. From this order defendant appeals.

Section 963 of the Code of Civil Procedure, before it was amended in 1915, provided that an appeal might be taken from “an order granting or refusing a new trial.” By the amendment of the year mentioned, the passage of the amendment long antedating the order now appealed from, this language was changed so as to permit an appeal only from “an order granting a new trial in an action or proceeding tried by a jury where such trial by jury is a matter of right.” The supreme court, in reciting the history of this amendment and of others affecting appeals, has said: “Separate appeals from orders granting new trials can be had only in those cases where a jury trial has been had as a matter of right” (Estate of Waters, 181 Cal. 584 [185 Pac. 951].)

Appeal dismissed.

Finlayson, P. J., and Craig, J., concurred.

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

WORKS, J.

This is an action for damages for personal injuries and was tried without a jury, with the result that judgment went for defendant. Upon motion by plaintiff the court made its order granting a new trial of the cause. From this order defendant appeals.

Section 963 of the Code of Civil Procedure, before it was amended in 1915, provided that an appeal might be taken from “an order granting or refusing a new trial.” By the amendment of the year mentioned, the passage of the amendment long antedating the order now appealed from, this language was changed so as to permit an appeal only from “an order granting a new trial in an action or proceeding tried by a jury where such trial by jury is a matter of right.” The supreme court, in reciting the history of this amendment and of others affecting appeals, has said: “Separate appeals from orders granting new trials can be had only in those cases where a jury trial has been had as a matter of right” (Estate of Waters, 181 Cal. 584 [185 Pac. 951].)

Appeal dismissed.

Finlayson, P. J., and Craig, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 P. 334, 58 Cal. App. 280, 1922 Cal. App. LEXIS 303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgoldrick-v-visalia-midway-oil-co-calctapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack