Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

57 Cal. 325

McDonald v. McConkey

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1881

California Supreme Court · decided 1881-07-01

<p>Appeal from a judgment, and order dismissing a motion for a new trial, in the Third District Court, County of Alameda. McKee, J.</p>

Relies on Calderwood v. Peyser

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1881-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently December 1924

1 federal appellate · 13 state decisions

8018811890190019101920decided

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 →

The Court:

¶1Defendant filed an answer, and the relief granted to plaintiff by the judgment of the Court below was consistent with the case made by the complaint, and was embraced within the issues. (Code Civ. Proc. § 580.) The allegation of damages in each count of the complaint, with the exception of the words “ attorney’s fees,” is in the words of § 3336 of the Civil Code. The words “ attorney’s fees ” may be rejected as surplusage. The evidence is not before us, and it cannot be assumed that the jury included attorney’s fees in their verdict. The judgment should be affirmed.

¶2The order dismissing the motion for a new trial was an order “ after judgment,” and appealable, and the order was erroneous. (Calderwood v. Peyser, 42 Cal. 113.)

¶3Although there is but one transcript, there are two appeals before us, as distinct as if they had been separately noticed— one from the judgment, and the other from the order denying a new trial. It is hardly necessary to add, that, in sucli cases, the affirmance of the judgment on direct appeal therefrom, on the judgment roll, should not prevent the Court below from setting aside the verdict or findings (and the judgment based thereon), if it should be satisfied that the motion for a new trial should be granted.

¶4The judgment on direct appeal therefrom is affirmed. The order dismissing the motion for new trial is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings on the motion for a new trial.

/57/cal/325 · .json · Public domain