Quinn v. Kenyon

22 Cal. 82
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1863
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 22 Cal. 82 (Quinn v. Kenyon) 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
Quinn v. Kenyon, 22 Cal. 82 (Cal. 1863).

Opinion

Crocker, J. delivered the opinion of the Court—Cope, C. J. and Norton, J. concurring.

[83]*83This was an action of forcible entry and detainer, brought in a Justice’s Court in San Joaquin County. The plaintiff recovered judgment in the Justice’s Court, and the defendants appealed to the County Court, where the action was dismissed; but on motion of the plaintiff a new trial was granted, and the defendant appeals from the order granting the new trial. The judgment in the Justice’s Court was only for twelve dollars damages and twenty dollars fine, besides costs.

This Court has repeatedly decided that the power to grant new trials is one of legal discretion, and the abuse of that discretion only will justify an interference with the order. It is only in rare instances and upon very strong grounds that this Court will set aside an order granting a new trial, and this is not a case which calls for the exercise of that power.

In this case, it is doubtful whether this Court has jurisdiction of the appeal; but as that point was not argued, we leave it open for future consideration. (See Paul v. Silver, 16 Cal. 75.)

The order granting the new trial is affirmed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

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

Related

Peri v. Culley
6 P.2d 86 (California Court of Appeal, 1931)
Elliott v. Sloan
266 P. 1059 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1928)
Gaster v. Hinkley
258 P. 988 (California Court of Appeal, 1927)
Lowry v. Indianapolis Traction & Terminal Co.
126 N.E. 223 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1920)
Briggs v. Hall
129 P. 288 (California Court of Appeal, 1912)
Morgan v. Los Angeles Pacific Co.
108 P. 735 (California Court of Appeal, 1910)
Murray v. Heinze
42 P. 1057 (Montana Supreme Court, 1895)
Bates v. Howard
38 P. 715 (California Supreme Court, 1894)
McCauley v. Tyler
27 P. 391 (Montana Supreme Court, 1891)
Beeckenridge v. Crocker
68 Cal. 403 (California Supreme Court, 1886)
Pico v. Cohn
7 P. 680 (California Supreme Court, 1885)
Field v. Kinnear
5 Kan. 233 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1869)
Hall v. The Bark "Emily Banning"
33 Cal. 522 (California Supreme Court, 1867)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 Cal. 82, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quinn-v-kenyon-cal-1863.