Case ID: cal_2/html/0483-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Heydenfeldt, Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

T. C. INGRAHAM, S. VESHER, and O. P. READ & CO., Respondents, v. GILDERMESTER, DE FREEMERY, and BUFFON, Appellants.
    This Court has no power to review the facts of a case so as to reverse a judgment, or verdict, except where the Court below has been applied to for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was contrary to evidence, and has refused such new trial—and an appeal is taken directly from such refusal.
    
    Where there was a motion for a new trial, and the motion refused, and no appeal from that refusal—but an appeal from the final judgment only; Held, that the Court were precluded from any examination of the facts.
    Appeal from the Fifth Judicial District for the County of San Joaquin.
    This case was first heard and decided at January term, 1852, and reported in this.volume p. 88. An application was made for a re-hearing, and so ordered by the Court at the April term succeeding. (See p. 161.) And the cause came again before the Court at this term upon the above order. It will be seen by the opinion of the Court, that the facts of the case were excluded from consideration by a defect in the mode of appeal; and as the argument of counsel was confined to the facts and merits of the case, and had no bearing upon the points decided, neither the facts nor the arguments are reported. So much of the record as is deemed necessary to show the grounds of the decision of the Court, is in substance as follows:—
    April 9th, 1851. The case was submitted to a jury, who found “that the plaintiffs are entitled to $875.75.”
    On this verdict the Court ordered judgment to be entered in favour of the plaintiff for the above sum, with costs.
    April 11th. Defendants’ counsel moved the Court to set aside the judgment, and for a new trial, on grounds set forth in their motion, which the Court overruled.
    June 19th. Notice was given by the defendants’ counsel to the counsel for plaintiffs, that defendants appealed from the above judgment. And on the same day the appeal was taken accordingly.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Heydenfeldt, Justice.

We have before decided that this Court has no power to review the facts of a case, so as to reverse a judgment on verdict, except where the Court below has been applied to for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was contrary to evidence, and has refused such new trial, and an appeal is taken directly from such refusal.

All of the points made by the appellants, which can be considered in this case, require a revisal of the facts given in evidence. And although there was a motion for a new trial, and the motion refused—yet there is no appeal from that refusal. The appeal is from the final judgment only, and we are therefore precluded from any examination of the facts.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.-