Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Brotherton v. Hart 11 Cal. 405

← Cases

Brotherton v. Hart

11 Cal. 405 Court Cal. English

Delivered by Terry, C. J., at the July Term, 1858, delivered the opinion of the Court—

Contents

Majority

p. 405
BROTHERTON v. HART et al.

Headnote

Where the parties in the Court below stipulated that a motion for a new trial should be denied, they cannot question, in this Court, the correctness of an order denying such motion.
Appeal from the District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District, County of San Francisco.
D. W. Perley for Appellants.
E. A. Lawrence for Respondent.

Field, J., concurring.

In this case the parties, by stipulation, consented that the motion for a new trial should be denied. Having consented to the order, they cannot now question its correctness. (Meerholtz v. Sessions, 9 Cal. 277 .)

Judgment affirmed.

Cases cited