O'Leary v. Castle

California Supreme Court

O'Leary v. Castle

65 P. 950, 133 Cal. 508, 1901 Cal. LEXIS 956

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 2, 1901

DocketL.A. No. 818.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 65 P. 950 (O'Leary v. Castle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

O'Leary v. Castle, 65 P. 950, 133 Cal. 508, 1901 Cal. LEXIS 956 (Cal. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

COOPER, C.

This action was brought to recover two thousand dollars, balance claimed to be due plaintiff upon a written contract for services in the development of certain mines, upon a contingent contract providing for such payment in case of the said mines being sold.

Findings were filed, upon which judgment was entered for plaintiff. Appellants made a motion for a new trial, which was denied, and this appeal is from the judgment and order, upon the judgment roll and a statement on motion for new trial. It is claimed that certain findings are not supported by the evidence, but we cannot examine this question on the record here presented. The code provides that when the notice of motion for new trial designates as the ground of the motion the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the decision, “ the statement shall specify the particulars in which such evidence is alleged to be insufficient.” (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 659.)

In this case the statement contains no specification whatever. It was settled June 3, 1899. There is printed in the record what appears to be a copy of certain specifications as to the alleged insufficiency, but it is no part of the statement, is wholly without authentication, and is signed by appellants’ attorneys only. It is marked “ Filed June 12, 1899.” This paper is no part of the statement or record.

It is also argued that the appellants were improperly joined with the other defendants in the action. The court found that there was no misjoinder, and we must presume that the finding is supported by the evidence, in the absence of any specification of insufficiency.

The judgment is the legal conclusion from the facts found. The court found that the said two thousand dollars is wholly unpaid, and that appellants are indebted to plaintiff for said amount.

The judgment and order should be affirmed.

Smith, C., and Haynes, C., concurred.

Fot the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the judgment and order are affirmed.

McFarland, J., Temple, J., Henshaw, J.

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

COOPER, C.

This action was brought to recover two thousand dollars, balance claimed to be due plaintiff upon a written contract for services in the development of certain mines, upon a contingent contract providing for such payment in case of the said mines being sold.

Findings were filed, upon which judgment was entered for plaintiff. Appellants made a motion for a new trial, which was denied, and this appeal is from the judgment and order, upon the judgment roll and a statement on motion for new trial. It is claimed that certain findings are not supported by the evidence, but we cannot examine this question on the record here presented. The code provides that when the notice of motion for new trial designates as the ground of the motion the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the decision, “ the statement shall specify the particulars in which such evidence is alleged to be insufficient.” (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 659.)

In this case the statement contains no specification whatever. It was settled June 3, 1899. There is printed in the record what appears to be a copy of certain specifications as to the alleged insufficiency, but it is no part of the statement, is wholly without authentication, and is signed by appellants’ attorneys only. It is marked “ Filed June 12, 1899.” This paper is no part of the statement or record.

It is also argued that the appellants were improperly joined with the other defendants in the action. The court found that there was no misjoinder, and we must presume that the finding is supported by the evidence, in the absence of any specification of insufficiency.

The judgment is the legal conclusion from the facts found. The court found that the said two thousand dollars is wholly unpaid, and that appellants are indebted to plaintiff for said amount.

The judgment and order should be affirmed.

Smith, C., and Haynes, C., concurred.

Fot the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the judgment and order are affirmed.

McFarland, J., Temple, J., Henshaw, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 P. 950, 133 Cal. 508, 1901 Cal. LEXIS 956, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oleary-v-castle-cal-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack