De Molera v. Martin

Citations

• 120 Cal. 544
• 52 P. 825
• 1898 Cal. LEXIS 805

Syllabus

<p>New Tbiai—Statement—Insufficiency of Evidence.—In a statement on motion for a new trial, the specifications of the particulars in which the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision must not be a mere repetition of the ground of insufficiency of the evidence upon which the notice of the motion is based, nor a mere statement of the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain a general finding in favor of a right of recovery; but the specification of particulars must be of such probative facts, or particular facts necessarily involved in the findings, as it is claimed are not sustained by the evidence, so as to direct the attention of the court and counsel to the particulars relied upon, to the end that the evidence bearing upon the specifications of such particulars may be inserted in the statement and considered by the court.</p> <p>Id.—Amendments not Required.—Where the statement does not contain proper specifications of particulars in which the evidence is claimed to be insufficient to justify the decision, the opposite party has the right to assume that the court will follow the statute, and disregard the statement.</p> <p>Id.—Ejectment—Insufficient Specifications.—In an action of ejectment, a specification of insufficiency of the evidence to justify the decision that the' plaintiff was the owner and entitled to possession of the premises, and that the defendant, without right or title, ejected the plaintiff therefrom and unlawfully withholds the possession thereof from the plaintiff, is substantially a repetition of the general ground of insufficiency of the evidence to justify the decision designated in the notice of intention to move for a new trial, and is insufficient. The specifications in such case should relate to the probative facts, involved in the question of title.</p> <p>In.—Form of Specifications.—The specification should he merely of the particular probative facts or particular findings which it is claimed that the evidence was insufficient