43 Cal. 274 | Cal. | 1872
By the Court,
This is an appeal from an order denying the motion of the plaintiff for a new trial.
First—The point made that the verdict is for too small a sum of money cannot be considered here, inasmuch as it was not specified in the statement filed in support of the motion with the particularity required by the statute.
Second—The evidence in relation to the subject of the counterclaim was substantially conflicting, and the verdict will, therefore, not be disturbed here.
Fourth—The second instruction given at the instance of the defendant is somewhat open to criticism, in the respect that the question of the authority of George B. Chester to enter into the contract was not adverted to in that instruction; but in the first instruction given, upon request of the plaintiffs, the jury were distinctly told “that, in order to bind the plaintiffs by such contract, it must be shown that the plaintiffs assented thereto or authorized George Chester to make such a contract, in order to bind the plaintiffs thereby.” In view of this distinct enunciation upon the point the jury could hardly have been misled by the omission occurring in the other instruction.
The order denying new trial is affirmed.