Brotherton v. Hart
BROTHERTON v. HART
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Lawrence F. Terry (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 — Terry
Terry, C. J., at the July Term, 1858, delivered the opinion of the Court— Field, J., concurring.
In this case the parties, by stipulation, consented that the motion for a new trial should be denied. Having consented to the order, they cannot now question its correctness. (Meerholtz v. Sessions, 9 Cal. 277.)
Judgment affirmed.
Cites, in this corpus
- Meerholz v. Sessions · 1858-07-01
Cited by
- Gallegos v. Kia Motors CA4/3 G049400 · 2014-10-28
- Gibson v. Berryman Civ. No. 762. · 1910-10-07
- Hibernia Savings Etc. Soc. v. Waymire S.F. No. 4878. · 1907-11-13
- City & County San Francisco v. Certain Real Estate No. 3,216 · 1872-01-15
- Mecham v. McKay · 1869-07-01