gno.law

Rankin v. Central Pacific R.R. Co.

California Supreme Court · No. 12074. · 1887-07-07 · Published · 73 Cal. 96 · 15 P. 57

JULIAN H. RANKIN, Respondent, v. CENTRAL PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Respondent, and SOUTH PACIFIC COAST RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant

Proceeding
appeal from an order
Trial court
Superior Court of Alameda County
Outcome
other — • The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff against the Central Pacific Railroad Company, but which was silent as to the South Pacific Coast Ra
Area
civil

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

The Court.

The appeal of the Southern Pacific Coast Bailroad Company from the order of the court below granting a new trial is unauthorized, and must be dismissed, because not taken by “a party aggrieved.” (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 938.)

The order in express terms grants a new trial only to the moving party, i. e., the Central Pacific Bailroad Com- *97 party» Por the purpose of determining the scope and effect of an order granting a new trial, we look at the moving papers as well as the language' of the order. In this case appellant had judgment in its favor against plaintiff, and plaintiff recovered judgment against appellant’s co-defendant,—the Central Pacific Railroad Company. The latter moved for a new trial, which motion was granted in an order, of which the following is a copy: “It is hereby ordered that the verdict and judgment heretofore rendered and entered herein be and the same are hereby vacated and set aside, and that a new trial be granted the moving party herein, upon its payment to plaintiff of his costs of the former trial.” This order of the court granting a new trial did not, and could not, affect the judgment in favor of the Southern Pacific Coast Railroad Company.

Appeal dismissed.

Cited by