Meerholz v. Sessions
9 Cal. 277
Opinion
The statement embodied in the record was filed on the motion for a new trial, and we can only examine the action of the Court [278]*278below in denying the motion. As the order was entered by consent, we cannot hear any objection to it on appeal.
Judgment affirmed, with twenty per cent, damages.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Meerholz v. Sessions, 9 Cal. 277 (Cal. 1858).
9 Cal. 277 (Meerholz v. Sessions) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Fowler v. Fowler
272 P.2d 546 (California Court of Appeal, 1954)
Gibson v. Berryman
111 P. 926 (California Court of Appeal, 1910)
Hibernia Savings Etc. Soc. v. Waymire
92 P. 645 (California Supreme Court, 1907)
Brotherton v. Hart
11 Cal. 405 (California Supreme Court, 1858)