Hammel v. Stone
Syllabus
Summary
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.
FOOTE, C.
This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial, made by a judge other than the one who presided at the trial of the cause. The order was made upon the ground that the record did not show sufficient evidence to support one of the findings of facts. Every intendment prevails in favor of the correctness of such an order, made in the manner above specified, and such intendments must be overcome by an affirmative showing of error: Blum v. Sunol, 63 Cal. 341 . It is the well-settled rule of this court that unless the court below is shown to have abused that sound, legal discretion which it is called upon to exercise in relation to such a matter, its order in the premises will not be disturbed: Savage v. Sweeney, 63 Cal. 340 ; Breckenridge v. Crocker, 68 Cal. 403, 404 , 9 Pac. 426 , and cases there cited.
We perceive no abuse of that discretion in the present instance, and the order should be affirmed.
We concur: Belcher, C. C.; Hayne, C.
By the COURT.—For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the order is affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 0 cases
No case in this database cites this case.