Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

47 Cal. 162

Jacks v. Buell

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1873

California Supreme Court · decided 1873-07-01

the District Court of the Twentieth Judicial District, Monterey County. The action was for rent.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1873-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently May 1955

8 state decisions

40187318801890190019101920193019401950decided

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 →

By the Court:

¶1Upon a motion for a new trial, questions respecting the sufficiency of the complaint cannot be presented, for they are not comprehended in the statutory grounds of the motion; and where an appeal is taken, as here, from the order refusing a new trial, and not from the judgment, those questions cannot be considered by this Court.

¶2The affidavit for a continuance did not show due diligence on the part of the defendant in procuring the attendance of the absent witnesses. But were the affidavit suffi*164cient in this respect, the action of the Court in denying the motion could not be reviewed, because it is not presented by a bill of exceptions. The affidavits are clearly insufficient to entitle the defendant to a. new trial, on the ground of newly-discovered evidence.

¶3Order affirmed.

/47/cal/162 · .json · Public domain