Union Lumber Co. v. Webster

California Court of Appeal

Union Lumber Co. v. Webster

113 P. 891, 15 Cal. App. 165, 1911 Cal. App. LEXIS 231

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJanuary 3, 1911

DocketCiv. No. 897.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 113 P. 891 (Union Lumber Co. v. Webster) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Union Lumber Co. v. Webster, 113 P. 891, 15 Cal. App. 165, 1911 Cal. App. LEXIS 231 (Cal. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

*166 ALLEN, P. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment and an order denying a new trial. Findings of fact were waived, . and no evidence is presented by bill .of exceptions, or otherwise. The only question argued by counsel for appellant relates to the action of the trial court in refusing to modify its judgment, and in denying the motion for a new trial, which motion was based upon affidavits of newly discovered evidence. This action of the court in passing upon such motion involved discretion and will not be disturbed, except in cases where the court’s abuse of such discretion is made to appear. For aught in the record, the evidence claimed to have been newly discovered may have been merely cumulative, or of such character that, if taken in connection with the other evidence, it would not have affected the judgment, and, therefore, would not have afforded a reasonable ground for the granting of such motion. If upon any hypothesis the action of the trial court, in disposing of a motion of this kind, can be sustained, it should not be disturbed upon appeal.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Shaw, J., and James, J., concurred.

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

*166 ALLEN, P. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment and an order denying a new trial. Findings of fact were waived, . and no evidence is presented by bill .of exceptions, or otherwise. The only question argued by counsel for appellant relates to the action of the trial court in refusing to modify its judgment, and in denying the motion for a new trial, which motion was based upon affidavits of newly discovered evidence. This action of the court in passing upon such motion involved discretion and will not be disturbed, except in cases where the court’s abuse of such discretion is made to appear. For aught in the record, the evidence claimed to have been newly discovered may have been merely cumulative, or of such character that, if taken in connection with the other evidence, it would not have affected the judgment, and, therefore, would not have afforded a reasonable ground for the granting of such motion. If upon any hypothesis the action of the trial court, in disposing of a motion of this kind, can be sustained, it should not be disturbed upon appeal.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Shaw, J., and James, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 P. 891, 15 Cal. App. 165, 1911 Cal. App. LEXIS 231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/union-lumber-co-v-webster-calctapp-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack