Case ID: cal_49/html/0218-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court, McKinstry, J.: Wallace, C. J., concurring.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 4,147.]
    MICHAEL SARVER v. JOSE GARCIA et al.
    Waiver of Signature to Bill of Exceptions.—A party may, by stipulation, waive the signature of the Judge or referee to a bill of exceptions, and consent that a motion for a new trial be heard upon such bill.
    Appeal from the District Court, First Judicial District, County of Santa Barbara.
    Ejectment to recover a tract of land in Santa Barbara County. The case was referred to C. Fernald to try, and report a judgment. The referee reported findings and a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants moved for a new trial on a bill of exceptions. The following stipulation signed by the attorneys was annexed to the bill: “We hereby agree that the foregoing bill of exceptions, with the exhibits and testimony thereto annexed, is full, true and correct, and we stipulate and agree that a motion for a new trial may be heard thereon. Notice of the hearing of the said motion is hereby waived.
    “September 10, 1873.”
    The Court below granted a new trial, and the plaintiff appealed from the order.
    The other facts are stated in the opinion, and .in the concurring opinion.
    
      Charles E. Huse, for the Appellant.
    
      A. Packard, for the Respondent.
   By the Court, McKinstry, J.:

The judgment was for plaintiff, and the Court below granted a new trial on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to justify the findings.

Appellant (plaintiff in the Court below), argues that the District Court erred for the reasons: First, that the bill of exceptions was not signed or certified by the referee or Judge; second, that the objections do not specify the particulars in which the evidence was insufficient.

1. The signature or certificate of the referee or Judge was waived by stipulation.

2. The exceptions do specify the particulars in which the evidence was claimed to be insufficient.

Order affirmed.

Wallace, C. J., concurring.

I concur in the order of affirmance and in the opinion of Mr. Justice McKinstry. The motion was submitted on an agreed statement of facts, containing sufficient specifications of the points relied upon for a new trial. To this agreed statement was annexed a fourth stipulation of counsel “that a motion for a new trial may be heard thereon.” The motion for a new trial was accordingly heard and determined, and it is too late for the losing party to suggest for the first time in this Court that the order should be reversed for want of a bill of exceptions filed in support of the. motion.

Mr. Justice Rhodes did not express an opinion.