California Supreme Court, 1883

Bate v. Miller

California Supreme Court · Decided March 7, 1883

63 Cal. 233; 1883 Cal. LEXIS 415

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Lewetzow v. Sapiro (Cal. Ct. App. 1961)
County of Los Angeles v. Lankershim (Cal. 1893)
Heinlen v. Heildron (Cal. 1887)

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

Per Curiam.

The judgment and orders must be affirmed. The findings are sufficient to sustain the judgment and the statement on motion for new trial contains no sufficient specification of particulars wherein the findings are unsustained by the evidence. There is no affidavit in support of the alleged *234grounds of surprise and newly discovered evidence, which by statute is made essential to the granting of a motion for ■ new trial on either of those grounds. And with respect to the plaintiff’s motion to “amend and make additional findings,” it is sufficient to say that this motion was made long after the entry of the judgment and the denial of the motion for a new trial.

Judgment and orders affirmed.

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