General
ABRAHAM STOCKETT et al., Appellants, v. THOMAS HENRY, et al., Respondents
28 Cal. App. 45·District Court of Appeal of the State of California·1915·CA
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
[Civ. No. 1519.
First Appellate District.
July 2, 1915.]
ABRAHAM STOCKETT et al., Appellants, v. THOMAS HENRY, et al., Respondents.
New Trial—Notice of Intention—Correction of—Discretion.—It is held in this case that the trial court did not atrase its discretion in refusing to permit a correction of the notice of intention to move for a new trial.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Alameda County refusing permission to correct a notice of intention to move for a new trial. William H. Waste, Judge.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
George Ingraham, for Appellants.
Edward R. Eliassen, for Respondents.
[MAJORITY — THE COURT.]
THE COURT.
This is an appeal from an order of the trial court refusing to permit the appellants to correct their notice of intention to move for a new trial.
We are satisfied from an examination of the record that the discretion with which said court was invested in the matter of permitting a correction of the notice of intention to move for a new trial in the respect sought by said motion, was not abused in refusing to permit such correction, and its action taken therein will not therefore be disturbed upon appeal.
Order affirmed.