Case ID: cal-unrep_1/html/0225-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SHAFTER, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HARPER, Administrator, Appellant, v. MINOR et al., Respondents.
    No. 722;
    November 6, 1865.
    Appeal. — By Failing to File the Notice of Appeal before the lapse of the statutory time for filing it, a party who would appeal from a judgment loses the right.
    Appeal — Order Denying New Trial — Specification of Grounds.— On appeal from an order denying a motion for a new trial, the statement in the record must contain a specification of the grounds the motion was based on; a setting forth of the points in a general way in the motion itself will not suffice.
    APPEAL from Third Judicial District, Santa Clara County.
    J. B. Hart for appellant; W. T. Wallace for respondents.
   SHAFTER, J.

The appeal is from the judgment and from an order overruling the motion for a new trial.

The judgment was rendered January 13, 1864, and the notice of appeal was not filed until after the right of appeal had been lost by lapse of time.

As to the appeal from the order, it is not supported by a statement which we are at liberty to notice. The statement in the record contains no specification of grounds explaining the several points of objection set forth in a general .way in the notice of motion. We do not consider that this radical defect in the statement is cured by the assignments in the exceptions taken to the findings. The papers are not identical but distinct from each other; and each has its separate place and office in the course of the proceedings, whether at law or in equity. But in this case the special assignments in the exceptions to the findings are unavailable even in that connection. And if bad for the very purpose for which they were made, it would seem to furnish an additional reason why they should not be treated as good for another and distinct purpose to which they have no apparent relation.

Judgment and order affirmed.

We concur: Sawyer, J.; Sanderson, C. J.; Currey, J.

Mr. Justice Rhodes, being disqualified, did not sit in this cause.