Jacks v. Buell
DAVID JACKS v. R. T. BUELL
- 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
By the Court:
Upon a motion for a new trial, questions respecting the sufficiency of the complaint cannot be presented, for they are not comprehended in the statutory grounds of the motion; and where an appeal is taken, as here, from the order refusing a new trial, and not from the judgment, those questions cannot be considered by this Court.
The affidavit for a continuance did not show due diligence on the part of the defendant in procuring the attendance of the absent witnesses. But were the affidavit suffi*164cient in this respect, the action of the Court in denying the motion could not be reviewed, because it is not presented by a bill of exceptions. The affidavits are clearly insufficient to entitle the defendant to a. new trial, on the ground of newly-discovered evidence.
Order affirmed.
Cited by
- Johnson v. Fassett Civ. No. 16277 · 1955-05-16
- People v. Collins Docket No. Crim. 2692. · 1925-01-24
- Evans v. Paige No. 18130 · 1894-03-29
- Alpers v. Hunt No. 12801 · 1890-09-27
- Wheeler v. Kassabaum No. 11299 · 1888-05-05