Mulholland v. Heyneman
19 Cal. 605
Opinion
Field, C. J. concurring.
This is an appeal from an order refusing to set aside a judgment on the ground of surprise. The application was addressed to the legal discretion of the Court; and upon the affidavits before us, we cannot undertake to say that this discretion has been improperly exercised. The recent case of Haight v. Green is decisive of the matter.
Order affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Mulholland v. Heyneman, 19 Cal. 605 (Cal. 1862).
19 Cal. 605 (Mulholland v. Heyneman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Kinkead v. Moriarty
136 N.W. 101 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1912)
Zimmerer v. Fremont National Bank
81 N.W. 849 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1900)
McGuire v. Drew
23 P. 312 (California Supreme Court, 1890)
Whiteside v. Logan
7 Mont. 373 (Montana Supreme Court, 1888)
Cox v. O'Neil
4 P. 456 (California Supreme Court, 1884)
Bailey v. Taaffe
29 Cal. 422 (California Supreme Court, 1866)