White v. Tacoma Lumber Sales, Inc.

California Court of Appeal

White v. Tacoma Lumber Sales, Inc.

192 Cal. App. 2d 615, 13 Cal. Rptr. 708, 1961 Cal. App. LEXIS 1980

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMay 26, 1961

DocketCiv. 10064

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 192 Cal. App. 2d 615 (White v. Tacoma Lumber Sales, Inc.) 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

White v. Tacoma Lumber Sales, Inc., 192 Cal. App. 2d 615, 13 Cal. Rptr. 708, 1961 Cal. App. LEXIS 1980 (Cal. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

VAN DYKE, P. J.

This is an appeal from a money judgment in a personal injury action.

Before the entry of the judgment appellants made a motion *616 for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. They did not at that time reserve the right to apply for a new trial. However, a week later they filed a notice of motion for a new trial. The trial court struck this motion and denied the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Thereafter judgment was entered on the verdict in favor of respondent.

Appellants assign as error the striking of their motion for a new trial. There was no error. Appellants waived the right to apply for a new trial by failing to contemporaneously reserve such right at the time they made a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. (Code Civ. Proc., § 629; Estate of Jackson, 157 Cal.App.2d 198, 203-204 [320 P.2d 563].) Moreover, appellants did not file the notice of intention to move for a new trial within five days after making the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict as required by section 659 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The judgment is affirmed.

Peek, J., and Schottky, J., concurred.

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

VAN DYKE, P. J.

This is an appeal from a money judgment in a personal injury action.

Before the entry of the judgment appellants made a motion *616 for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. They did not at that time reserve the right to apply for a new trial. However, a week later they filed a notice of motion for a new trial. The trial court struck this motion and denied the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Thereafter judgment was entered on the verdict in favor of respondent.

Appellants assign as error the striking of their motion for a new trial. There was no error. Appellants waived the right to apply for a new trial by failing to contemporaneously reserve such right at the time they made a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. (Code Civ. Proc., § 629; Estate of Jackson, 157 Cal.App.2d 198, 203-204 [320 P.2d 563].) Moreover, appellants did not file the notice of intention to move for a new trial within five days after making the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict as required by section 659 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The judgment is affirmed.

Peek, J., and Schottky, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 Cal. App. 2d 615, 13 Cal. Rptr. 708, 1961 Cal. App. LEXIS 1980, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-tacoma-lumber-sales-inc-calctapp-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack