Case ID: cal_46/html/0643-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 3,757.]
    HENRY HANCOCK v. C. E. THOM.
    Practice—Proceedings Before the Code.—Proceedings had and determined prior to the taking effect of the Code will, on appeal, be decided in accordance with the former Practice Act.
    Appeal from Order Denting a New Trial.—On an appeal from an order denying a new trial, made before the Code took effect, there must be a statement filed and settled, or an identification of the affidavits used.
    Appeal from the District Court, Seventeenth Judicial District, County of Los Angeles.
    The plaintiff brought the action for one thousand six hundred dollars, the value of professional services as an attorney at law; judgment was rendered in his favor for twenty-six dollars and thirty cents without costs; he moved for a new trial, which was refused, and he appealed from the order refusing it.
    The other facts are stated in the opinion.
    
      C. G. W. French and Henry Hancock, for Appellant.
    
      Thom & Ross and H. K. S. O’Melveny, for Respondent.
   By the Court:

The application for a new trial was made and denied before the Code of Civil Procedure took effect, and must therefore be determined by the provisions of the former Practice Act.

There is no statement filed or settled—nothing is found in the record by which it can be even imagined that the motion was supported, except a fugitive affidavit, in which a general history of the case is detailed; but this affidavit bears no identification as having been used at the hearing of the mo don in the Court below. No error appearing in the action of the Court, the order denying a new trial must be affirmed here, and it is so ordered. Bemittitur forthwith.