Hyperlawhypertext legal database Kerr v. McCloskey 1 Cal. Unrep. 288

← Cases

Kerr v. McCloskey

1 Cal. Unrep. 288 Court Cal. Decision date 1866-06-01 Docket No. 956 English

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

Delivered by SAWYER, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 288
KERR, Respondent, v. McCLOSKEY, Appellant.
No. 956;
June 1, 1866.

Headnote

New Trial. — The Statement Accompanying a Motion for a new trial must specify the grounds on which the motion rests.
APPEAL from Twelfth Judicial District, San Francisco County.
C. H. Parker for respondent; James Abee for appellant.

Action upon a street contract in. San Francisco. Without including the two married women, “the owners of the major part of the frontage of the lots and lands liable to be assessed” elected to take the work and entered into the contract to do it. This is sufficient. We also think the assignment and the evidence of assignment sufficient to support the finding on that point if the statement on motion for new trial was sufficient to present the point. But it is not, for there is no specification in the statement of either of these grounds of motion.

Judgment affirmed.

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