Peters v. Foss

16 Cal. 357
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1860
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 16 Cal. 357 (Peters v. Foss) 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
Peters v. Foss, 16 Cal. 357 (Cal. 1860).

Opinion

Cope, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Baldwin J. concurring.

On the trial of this case, it was held by the Court that the answer [358]*358was insufficient to raise an issue, except upon one of the allegations of the complaint, and the introduction of evidence was limited accordingly. When the answer was declared to be insufficient, the defendants asked leave to amend, but the Court refused to allow the amendment, and the plaintiff obtained a verdict. A new trial was afterwards granted, and from the order granting it the plaintiff appeals to this Court.

A motion for a new trial is always addressed to the sound discretion of the Court, and we can only interfere where there has been a plain and obvious abuse of this discretion. There does not seem to have been any such abuse in the present case. We are not informed of the particular reasons upon which the Court acted, but sufficient appears to satisfy ns that interference on our part would be improper. The defendants might with great propriety have been permitted to amend their answer, and substantial justice would doubtless have been promoted by such a course. In any shape in which the question could have been presented to us, we would probably have regarded the action of the Court upon that subject as conclusive; but a new trial having been granted for the purpose, no doubt, of affording the parties an opportunity to present the case fairly on its merits, we do not feel ourselves at liberty to interfere. '

Order affirmed.

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

Related

Reynolds v. Mead
144 P.2d 424 (California Court of Appeal, 1944)
Chamberlain v. Chamberlain
95 P. 659 (California Court of Appeal, 1908)
Murray v. Heinze
42 P. 1057 (Montana Supreme Court, 1895)
Burns v. Scooffy
33 P. 86 (California Supreme Court, 1893)
Beeckenridge v. Crocker
68 Cal. 403 (California Supreme Court, 1886)
Pico v. Cohn
7 P. 680 (California Supreme Court, 1885)
Farmers' Natl. Gold Bank v. Stover
60 Cal. 387 (California Supreme Court, 1882)
McCausland v. Ralston
12 Nev. 195 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1877)
Mauge v. Heringhi
26 Cal. 577 (California Supreme Court, 1864)
Lestrade v. Barth
17 Cal. 285 (California Supreme Court, 1861)
Patterson & Frisbie v. Ely
19 Cal. 28 (California Supreme Court, 1861)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 Cal. 357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peters-v-foss-cal-1860.