California Supreme Court, 1873

Jacks v. Buell

California Supreme Court · Decided July 1, 1873

47 Cal. 162

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

Johnson v. Fassett (Cal. Ct. App. 1955)
People v. Collins (Cal. 1925)
Krantz v. Rio Grande Western Railway Co. (Utah 1896)
Evans v. Paige (Cal. 1894)
Ross v. Wait (S.D. 1892)
Alpers v. Hunt (Cal. 1890)
Wheeler v. Kassabaum (Cal. 1888)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

By the Court:

Upon 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.

The 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.

Order affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.