gno.law

Mayer v. Goldman

California Court of Appeal · Civ. No. 2245. · 1917-10-24 · Published · 169 P. 412 · 35 Cal. App. 111 · 1917 Cal. App. LEXIS 377

Samuel A. Mayer v. Isaac Goldman

Proceeding
appeal from an order
Trial court
Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco granting a new trial
Trial judge
W. M. Conley
Outcome
affirmed — The order is affirmed.
Area
civil
Panel
The Court. &#8212 (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

In this action, after judgment for defendant for his costs, the trial court granted plaintiff's motion for a new trial, which was based upon the grounds, among others, that the evidence was insufficient to justify certain findings, and that the court failed to find upon material issues. Defendant appeals.

As has been so often stated by appellate courts, the granting of a motion for a new trial or its refusal is largely a matter of discretion in the trial court, and where, as here, the evidence is sharply conflicting, the court may well, upon consideration of a motion for a new trial, take a different view of its effect than upon its first presentation, and arrive at the conclusion that its findings as made are insufficiently supported by it. With the discretion of the court thus exercised this court will not interfere.

The order is affirmed. *Page 112