TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Schreiber v. Whitney

JACOB SCHREIBER v. J. H. WHITNEY

Schreiber v. Whitney, 60 Cal. 431 (1882)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 12, 1882
Docket
No. 6,935
Citations
60 Cal. 4311882 Cal. LEXIS 486
Syllabus
New Trial—Authentication of Statement—Certificate.—A motion for new trial was submitted upon a statement certified to be correct by the attorneys of both parties. Held: The statement not being signed and certified by the Judge of the Court below, as required by Sub. 4, § 659 C. C. P., must be disregarded.
Summary
Appeal from a judgment for the defendants and an order denying a new trial in the Nineteenth District Court, City and County of San Francisco. Wheeler, J. Material allegations of the complaint were denied by the answer and there were no findings. The following stipulation is attached to the statement appearing in the transcript: “It is herebystipulated that the foregoing statement contains all the evidence and copies of all the original papers used in the trial of said cause, as they appear in the records and files of the Clerk of said Court. “And it is agreed that the motion for a new trial be submitted upon said record. “September 11, 1879. “George Turner, “Attorney for Plaintiffs and Motion. “Garber & Thornton & Teal, “Attorneys for Defendants.”

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

Opinion of the Court

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

The Court:

The document in the transcript, purporting to be a statement on motion for new trial, is not signed and certified by the Judge of the Court below, as required by Sub. 4, Sec. 659, C. C. P., and must be disregarded.

There is no error in the judgment roll.

Judgment and order affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1883–1884: 11887–1888: 11889–1890: 11891–1892: 11895–1896: 118832026peak 1883 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Raymond v. Thexton7 Mont. 299 (1888)
  2. Adams v. Dohrmann63 Cal. 417 (1883)
  3. Parrott v. City of Hot Springs68 N.W. 329 (S.D. 1896)
  4. Slater v. Union Pacific Railway Co.8 Utah 178 (1892)
  5. Scherrer v. Hale9 Mont. 63 (1889)

Most recent

  1. Parrott v. City of Hot Springs68 N.W. 329 (S.D. 1896)
  2. Slater v. Union Pacific Railway Co.8 Utah 178 (1892)
  3. Scherrer v. Hale9 Mont. 63 (1889)
  4. Raymond v. Thexton7 Mont. 299 (1888)
  5. Adams v. Dohrmann63 Cal. 417 (1883)

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