Hoadley v. Crow

Decided July 1, 1863

California Supreme Court · decided 1863-07-01

<p>Appeal from the Ninth Judicial District.</p> <p>This is an appeal from an order overruling a motion for a new trial. The transcript on appeal contains the judgment roll, and what purports to be the evidence given on the trial, and certain exceptions, but there is no statement, either on appeal or on motion, for new trial, either settled or agreed to. At the close of the transcript is a paper purporting to be a statement of points and assignment of errors, signed by appellant’s attorney, in which it is stated that a statement on motion for a new trial was preferred and served by him, and exceptions thereto filed by the respondent, and these papers submitted to the Judge for settlement, but that he had omitted to settle the same.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently June 1883

1 state decisions

Relies on People v. Ah Ki

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1863-07-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Norton, J. delivered the opinion of the Court, Cope, C. J. and Crocker, J. concurring.

¶1This is an appeal from an order denying a motion for a new trial. The testimony of certain witnesses is copied into the record, but there is no statement of any kind. There is, therefore, nothing before us which we can consider for the purpose of judging of the *266propriety of the order appealed from. (McIntyre v. Willis, 20 Cal. 177.)

¶2The allegation that the Judge omitted to settle a statement which was submitted to him cannot be taken as a substitute for the statement, nor does it constitute a reason for reversing the judgment. The necessary steps should have been taken to obtain a settlement of the statement.

¶3Judgment affirmed.