TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Grant v. White

Grant v. White, 6 Cal. 55 (1856)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1856
Judges
Heydenfeldt
Citations
6 Cal. 55
Syllabus
Where a party changes his attorneys in an action, and there is no regular substitution of attorneys as pointed out by statute, notices may be served on the attorney of record.
Summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of the City of San Francisco. In this cause judgment was rendered against the defendant in the Court below. Defendant moved for a new trial, and in the meantime, employed other attorneys. No substitution of attorneys was filed, nor notice thereof given to plaintiff. Plaintiff’s attorney served notice of argument on defendant’s attorney of record, who informed plaintiff’s attorney that defendant had employed other attorneys, and that he was no longer in the case. Plaintiff’s attorney insisting on serving the defendant’s attorney of record, the latter promised to inform the substituted attorneys of defendant, but forgot so to do. Neither defendant nor his then attorneys were served with notice, and not appearing at the argument, the motion for a new trial was overruled. A proper substitution of attorneys was then filed, and defendant’s attorneys moved to vacate the order 'overruling the motion for a new trial, on the ground of want of proper notice) which motion was overruled by the Court, and defendant appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Heydenfeldt

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt delivered the opinion of the Court.

Mr. Chief Justice Murray concurred.

The only point raised by the Bill of Exceptions is the want of proper notice by defendant’s counsel of the time for argument of the motion for a new trial. The notice, it seems, was served on Mr. Kewen after *56 his connection with the case had ceased, and the defence of it had heen turned over to Mr. Crockett. To avail the defendant of this objection, there should have been a regular substitution of counsel in the mode pointed out by the statute.

There is no statement of the case which will enable us to consider the other assignments of error. Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1870–1871: 11878–1879: 11882–1883: 11908–1909: 11920–1921: 21942–1943: 11954–1955: 11956–1957: 118702026peak 1920 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Reynolds v. Reynolds134 P.2d 251 (Cal. 1943)
  2. People v. Bouchard49 Cal. 2d 438 (1957)
  3. Wilkinson v. Tilden14 F. 778 (1883)
  4. Sherman v. Panno277 P.2d 80 (Cal. Ct. App. 1954)
  5. Abrahms v. Stokes39 Cal. 150 (1870)
  6. Choctaw, O. G. R. Co. v. Burgess1908 OK 81, 95 P. 606

Most recent

  1. People v. Bouchard49 Cal. 2d 438 (1957)
  2. Sherman v. Panno277 P.2d 80 (Cal. Ct. App. 1954)
  3. Reynolds v. Reynolds134 P.2d 251 (Cal. 1943)
  4. Candal v. Vargas29 P.R. 251 (1921)
  5. Candal v. Vargas29 P.R. Dec. 269 (1921)
  6. Choctaw, O. G. R. Co. v. Burgess1908 OK 81, 95 P. 606

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list