Gutierrez v. Brinkerhoff

Decided December 28, 1883

California Supreme Court · decided 1883-12-28

<p>Fraud.—A Deed Untainted by Fraud is not Impeachable for Fraud committed afterward in the obtaining of another deed between the same parties for different premises.</p> <p>New Trial—Discretion—Change in Incumbency of Bench.—A motion for a new trial on the ground of insufficiency of evidence is addressed to the discretion of the court, and will not be reversed unless a manifest abuse of discretion is shown. The fact that there was a change in the incumbency of the bench between the trial and the determination of the motion for a new trial does not change the rule,</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 1957

1 state decisions

Relies on Hall v. The Bark "Emily Banning" · Pierce v. Schaden · Bronner v. Wetzlar

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1883-12-28

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

McKINSTRY, J., Concurring.

¶1I concur in the judgment. The transcript shows a substantial conflict in the evidence bearing upon several of the issues and findings. It has frequently been held here that a motion for a new trial on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence is addressed to the sound legal discretion of the court below, and that an order granting a new trial on that ground will not be reversed unless it appears there has been manifest abuse of discretion: Pierce v. Schaden, 55 Cal. 406; Bronner v. Wetzlar, 55 Cal. 419; Phelps v. Union C. M. Co., 39 Cal. 410; Hall v. Banning, 33 Cal. 522. Such manifest abuse of discretion does not appear.

¶2The circumstance that there was a change in the incumbency of the bench, intermediate the trial and the determination of the motion for a new trial, makes no difference in the application of the rule: Altschul v. Doyle, 48 Cal. 435; Macy v. Davila, 48 Cal. 646; Blum v. Sunol, 11 Pac. C. L. J. 275.