Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

22 Cal. 82

Quinn v. Kenyon

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1863

California Supreme Court · decided 1863-07-01

This was an action of forcible entry and detainer, brought in a Justice’s Court in San Joaquin County. In that Court the defendant moved to dismiss, on the ground that plaintiff could not maintain a civil action, and supported the motion with proof that he (plaintiff) had been recently convicted of the crime of perjury, and was then under a sentence of imprisonment therefor for two years in the State Prison.

Relies on Paul v. Silver

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1863-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently December 1931

12 state decisions

3018631870188018901900191019201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

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

¶1*83This was an action of forcible entry and detainer, brought in a Justice’s Court in San Joaquin County. The plaintiff recovered judgment in the Justice’s Court, and the defendants appealed to the County Court, where the action was dismissed; but on motion of the plaintiff a new trial was granted, and the defendant appeals from the order granting the new trial. The judgment in the Justice’s Court was only for twelve dollars damages and twenty dollars fine, besides costs.

¶2This Court has repeatedly decided that the power to grant new trials is one of legal discretion, and the abuse of that discretion only will justify an interference with the order. It is only in rare instances and upon very strong grounds that this Court will set aside an order granting a new trial, and this is not a case which calls for the exercise of that power.

¶3In this case, it is doubtful whether this Court has jurisdiction of the appeal; but as that point was not argued, we leave it open for future consideration. (See Paul v. Silver, 16 Cal. 75.)

¶4The order granting the new trial is affirmed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

/22/cal/82 · .json · Public domain