Ryer v. Hicks

California Supreme Court

Ryer v. Hicks

1 Cal. Unrep. 234

California Supreme Court·Decided November 7, 1865·No. No. 642·Published

Opinion

SAWYER, J.

We think the evidence supports the finding and judgment. The ground that the evidence is insufficient to justify the finding is the only one specified in the statement on motion for new trial, as required by section 195 of the Practice Act. For this reason we are precluded from a discussion of the other points made by appellants: Hutton v. Reed, 25 Cal. 478; Burnett v. Pacheco, 27 Cal. 410. We have, however, examined the elaborate brief of appellant, and if the questions raised were before us, we think there is nothing in them that would justify a reversal of the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

We concur: Sanderson, C. J.; Shatter, J.; Currey, J.; Rhodes, J.

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

SAWYER, J.

We think the evidence supports the finding and judgment. The ground that the evidence is insufficient to justify the finding is the only one specified in the statement on motion for new trial, as required by section 195 of the Practice Act. For this reason we are precluded from a discussion of the other points made by appellants: Hutton v. Reed, 25 Cal. 478; Burnett v. Pacheco, 27 Cal. 410. We have, however, examined the elaborate brief of appellant, and if the questions raised were before us, we think there is nothing in them that would justify a reversal of the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

We concur: Sanderson, C. J.; Shatter, J.; Currey, J.; Rhodes, J.

Ryer v. Hicks, 1 Cal. Unrep. 234 (Cal. 1865).

Pincite

1 Cal. Unrep. 234 (Ryer v. Hicks) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related