Minturn v. Bliss

19 P. 185, 77 Cal. 90, 1888 Cal. LEXIS 631
California Supreme Court·Decided September 22, 1888·No. No. 12328·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Belcher, C. C.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from an order granting the defendant a new trial. The motion was made upon the grounds, among others, that the evidence was insufficient to justify the decision, and that errors in law were committed at the trial and excepted to by the defendant. It does not appear upon what ground the motion was granted, but, as has frequently been held, if it might properly have been granted upon any one of the grounds specified, the order cannot be reversed here.

There was a conflict of evidence upon some material points, and it is conceded by counsel for respondent that the court erred in admitting some of the evidence offered by the plaintiff. It is claimed, however, that the errors were harmless.

The application was addressed to the sound legal dis[91] cretion of the court, and in the absence of a clear showing to the contrary, it will be presumed that its discretion was properly exercised. Looking at the whole record, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion, and we therefore advise that the order be affirmed.

Hayne, C., concurred.

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

Minturn v. Bliss, 19 P. 185, 77 Cal. 90, 1888 Cal. LEXIS 631 (Cal. 1888).

19 P. 185 (Minturn v. Bliss) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ham v. County of Los Angeles
189 P. 462 (California Court of Appeal, 1920)
White v. Merrill
22 P. 1129 (California Supreme Court, 1889)