From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hill v. Hoefer

Court of Appeal of California, Third District
Apr 7, 1908
8 Cal.App. 70 (Cal. Ct. App. 1908)

Opinion

Civ. No. 411.

April 7, 1908.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Shasta County, and from an order denying a new trial. Charles M. Head, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court in the case of Hill v. Barner et al., No. 410, supra.

Sweeney Tillotson, and Reid Dozier, for Appellants, Joseph Hoefer et al.

Wm. Singer, Jr., Guy Shoup, and G. O. Perry, for Central Pacific Railway Company, Appellant.

Braynard Kimball, and T. W. H. Shanahan, for Respondent.


The facts and the law involved in this case are admittedly the same as those involved in Hill v. Barner etc. et al., No. 410, this day decided.

A motion was made to dismiss the appeal in this case, but the same is without merit, and is, therefore, denied.

Upon the authority of Hill v. Barner et al., ante, p. 58, [ 96 P. 111], and for the reasons therein stated, the judgment and order are reversed.

Chipman, P. J., and Burnett, J., concurred.


Summaries of

Hill v. Hoefer

Court of Appeal of California, Third District
Apr 7, 1908
8 Cal.App. 70 (Cal. Ct. App. 1908)
Case details for

Hill v. Hoefer

Case Details

Full title:SAMUEL HILL, Respondent, v. JOSEPH HOEFER et al., Appellants

Court:Court of Appeal of California, Third District

Date published: Apr 7, 1908

Citations

8 Cal.App. 70 (Cal. Ct. App. 1908)
96 P. 116

Citing Cases

Woodland v. Lyon

While it is held that the better practice is for the trial court to specify in its order granting a new…

Tidd v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.

Where one of the grounds upon which a motion for a new trial is made is that the evidence is insufficient to…