From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bate v. Miller

Supreme Court of California
Mar 7, 1883
63 Cal. 233 (Cal. 1883)

Opinion

         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, from an order refusing a new trial, and from an order refusing to amend the findings or make additional findings.

         COUNSEL:

         William H. Bate, Appellant in person.

         B. S. Brooks, for Respondents.


         OPINION

         The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

         PER CURIAM.

         The judgment and orders must be affirmed. The findings are sufficient to sustain the judgment and the statement on motion for new trial contains no sufficient specification of particulars wherein the findings are unsustained by the evidence. There is no affidavit in support of the alleged grounds of surprise and newly discovered evidence, which by statute is made essential to the granting of a motion for new trial on either of those grounds. And with respect to the plaintiff's motion to " amend and make additional findings," it is sufficient to say that this motion was made long after the entry of the judgment and the denial of the motion for a new trial.

         Judgment and orders affirmed.


Summaries of

Bate v. Miller

Supreme Court of California
Mar 7, 1883
63 Cal. 233 (Cal. 1883)
Case details for

Bate v. Miller

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM H. BATE, APPELLANT, v. GEORGE MILLER ET AL., RESPONDENTS

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Mar 7, 1883

Citations

63 Cal. 233 (Cal. 1883)

Citing Cases

Spotts v. Hanley

Under no circumstances can a specification avail anything, when directed to a matter of mere evidence. (Hayne…

Lewetzow v. Sapiro

[7] Appellant's final contention is that he should have been granted a motion for new trial upon the ground…