Rice v. Gashirie

13 Cal. 53
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1859
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 13 Cal. 53 (Rice v. Gashirie) 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
Rice v. Gashirie, 13 Cal. 53 (Cal. 1859).

Opinion

Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Terry, C. J. concurring.

[54]*54The defendant in this case moved the Court for a new trial.. This motion was granted, on the payment of costs—such payment having been made by the order a condition precedent. The defendant did not, at the time, except to these terms; the plaintiff excepted. The defendant, some two or three months afterwards, gave notice of appeal.

The only thing from which the defendant could appeal, under these circumstances, is the annexing of this condition to the granting of his motion. The terms upon which a Court will grant a new trial are peculiarly a matter within its discretion. This must necessarily be so; for so many reasons relating to the conduct, management, and peculiar circumstances of the trial, may exist, that it would be impossible to prescribe any general rules on the subject. If error at law intervenes, a party may take his exceptions, and prosecute his appeal without motion for a new trial; but if he makes his motion, and relies upon that for redress against an improper verdict, he must subject himself to the equitable power of the Court. The verdict may have gone against him, in some degree, or wholly, by his own neglect or default, or even the rulings of law be chargeable to his own laches or want of diligence. In such cases it may be proper to grant him a new trial—yet, only upon equitable terms. We cannot interfere with this exercise of discretion unless upon a clear showing that it has been abused, or that the terms were grossly unreasonable. This record shows no such case.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Williams v. Harry Hufford
313 P.2d 930 (California Court of Appeal, 1957)
Dorsey v. Barba
240 P.2d 604 (California Supreme Court, 1952)
Financial Credit Corp. v. Douglas
230 P.2d 1002 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1951)
Chapman v. Municipal Court
205 P.2d 712 (California Court of Appeal, 1949)
Larson v. Russell
176 N.W. 998 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1919)
Carver v. San Joaquin Cigar Co.
118 P. 92 (California Court of Appeal, 1911)
Godfrey v. Godfrey
106 N.W. 814 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1906)
Garoutte v. Haley
38 P. 194 (California Supreme Court, 1894)
Henderson v. Morris
5 Or. 24 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1873)
Walls v. Preston
25 Cal. 59 (California Supreme Court, 1864)
Carpentier v. Williamson
25 Cal. 154 (California Supreme Court, 1864)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 Cal. 53, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rice-v-gashirie-cal-1859.