Cochran v. O'Keefe

Citations

• 34 Cal. 554

Syllabus

<p>New Trial—Review of Order Granting same.—Where the grounds of motion for and the order granting or denying a new trial consist alone of alleged errors of law occurring at the trial, this Court will, on appeal from said order, review the proceedings of the Court below, so alleged to have been erroneous, as in other cases where questions of law, and not matters of discretion, are involved.</p> <p>Evidence—Sufficiency of Objection to Deed.—At the trial, as shown by the settled statement on motion for new trial, plaintiffs introduced in evidence a deed from G. to the u Guatamala Mining Company,” of an interest in the water right in litigation, to which the defendants objected, and stated as grounds of objection “that it was void as a conveyance of title to such property as a ditch or water right because it was not under seal, because it was not acknowledged, as required by law, because no foundation had been laid for its introduction in evidence as a conveyance of title from G., and because the Guatamala Company, as a company, could not take title by bill of sale, even if it was free from legal objection.” The title of the complaint names the plaintiffs as composing the Guatamala Company, which is recognized as true by the answer. The Court below set aside a judgment which had passed for plaintiffs, and granted a new trial on the defendants' motion therefor, and based its decision on the ground that the deed was void for want of a grantee capable of taking under it. Held, first, that the objection as stated failed to state sufficiently the point on which it rested ; second, that, as stated, the objection seems to be that the instrument is void as a conveyance of title to the Guatamala Company because it is a bill of sale, and not for want of a grantee named therein capable of taking; third, that the deed upon its face is not void for the want of a grantee named therein, and said objections do not point to any defect of parties to the instrument.</p>