gno.law

Daggett v. Vanderslice

California Supreme Court · No. 9541 · 1887-03-18 · Published · 2 Cal. Unrep. 745 · 13 P. 402 · 1887 Cal. LEXIS 834

DAGGETT v. VANDERSLICE

Area
civil
Panel
Foote (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 — Foote

FOOTE, C.

This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial. The action was instituted to recover from Vanderslice, the defendant, the value of some silverware left with him for safekeeping. Judgment was rendered for the defendant. The plaintiff then moved for a new trial, which was granted, and from the order made therein this appeal is prosecuted. We perceive no such abuse of the discretion vested in the trial court as would warrant a reversal of the order made in the premises, and in our opinion it should be affirmed.

We concur: Belcher, C. C.; Searls, C.

By the COURT.—Por the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the order is affirmed.