Hyperlawhypertext legal database Ryer v. Hicks 1 Cal. Unrep. 234

← Cases

Ryer v. Hicks

1 Cal. Unrep. 234 Court Cal. Decision date 1865-11-07 Docket No. 642 English

Judges We concur: Sanderson, C. J.; Shatter, J.; Currey, J.; Rhodes, J.

Delivered by SAWYER, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 234
RYER, Respondent, v. HICKS et al., Appellants.
No. 642;
November 7, 1865.

Headnote

Appeal — Points not Urged by Appellant. — On appeal from the disposition of a motion for a new trial, when the sole ground for the motion, as specified in the statement, is the insufficiency of the evidence to justify, the findings, the court is precluded from considering other points urged by the appellant.
APPEAL from Fifth Judicial District, San Joaquin County.
p. 235
Geo. A. Loughborough for respondent; Tyler & Cobb for appellants.

We think the evidence supports the finding and judgment. The ground that the evidence is insufficient to justify the finding is the only one specified in the statement on motion for new trial, as required by section 195 of the Practice Act. For this reason we are precluded from a discussion of the other points made by appellants: Hutton v. Reed, 25 Cal. 478 ; Burnett v. Pacheco, 27 Cal. 410 . We have, however, examined the elaborate brief of appellant, and if the questions raised were before us, we think there is nothing in them that would justify a reversal of the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

We concur: Sanderson, C. J.; Shatter, J.; Currey, J.; Rhodes, J.

Cases cited