Case ID: cal_11/html/0405-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Terry, C. J., at the July Term, 1858, delivered the opinion of the Court—", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BROTHERTON v. HART et al.
    
    Where the parties in the Court below stipulated that a motion for a new trial should be denied, they cannot question, in this Court, the correctness of an order denying such motion.
    Appeal from the District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District, County of San Francisco.
    
      D. W. Perley for Appellants.
    
      E. A. Lawrence for Respondent.
   Terry, C. J., at the July Term, 1858, delivered the opinion of the Court—

Field, J., concurring.

In this case the parties, by stipulation, consented that the motion for a new trial should be denied. Having consented to the order, they cannot now question its correctness. (Meerholtz v. Sessions, 9 Cal. 277.)

Judgment affirmed.