History
  • No items yet
midpage
Hammel v. Stone
14 P. 675
Cal.
1887
Check Treatment
FOOTE, C.

This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial, made by a judge other than the one who presided at the trial of the cause. The order was made upon the ground that the record did not show sufficient evidence to support one of the findings of facts. Every intendment prevails in favor of the correctness of such an order, made in the manner above specified, and such intendments must be overcome by an affirmative showing of error: Blum v. Sunol, 63 Cal. 341. It is the well-settled rule of this court that unless the court below is shown to have abused that sound, legal discretion which it is called upon to exercise in relation to such a matter, its order in the premises will not be disturbed: Savage v. Sweeney, 63 Cal. 340; Breckenridge v. Crocker, 68 Cal. 403, 404, 9 Pac. 426, and cases there cited.

We perceive no abuse of that discretion in the present instance, and the order should be affirmed.

We concur: Belcher, C. C.; Hayne, C.

By the COURT.—For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the order is affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Hammel v. Stone
Court Name: California Supreme Court
Date Published: Aug 15, 1887
Citation: 14 P. 675
Docket Number: No. 12,045
Court Abbreviation: Cal.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.