Case ID: cal_23/html/0461-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Crocker, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BALDWIN et al. v. FERRE et al.
    
    Where a statement is filed, and served by the moving party, on motion for a new trial, and amendments thereto are made by the opposing party, and the only settlement of, or certificate to, the same was an indorsement by the Judge at the bottom of the statement, that the amendments to the statement were allowed: held, that the statement would not be considered on appeal.
    Appeal from the District Court, Fourteenth Judicial District, Nevada County.
    
      J. J. Caldwell, for Appellants.
    
      A. C. Niles, for Respondents.
   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Crocker, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court—Norton, J. concurring.

This is an action to recover the possession of a quartz ledge in Nevada County, with a prayer for an injunction. The plaintiffs recovered judgment against the defendants, two of whom, Baldwin and Latour, appeal to this Court. The appeal is from the judgment, and from an order overruling a motion for a new trial. The respondents contend that the statement on the motion for a new trial was never settled, and cannot, therefore, be considered as part of the record. The record shows, that the defendants filed their statement, on motion for a new trial, November 19th, 1861; that, on the twenty-third" day of November, amendments thereto were filed; that, on December 2d, the statement was submitted to the Court, and taken under advisement; and at the end of the original statement appears the following clause, signed by the Judge of the District Court, to wit: The amendments to the within statement are hereby allowed.”

The amendments, thus allowed, were not incorporated into one document, as they should have been, but appear in the transcript in separate papers; and this Court has repeatedly held, that in such case they do not constitute such a statement as will be noticed on appeal. (Marlow v. Marsh, 9 Cal. 259; People v. Edwards, Id. 291; Skillman v. Riley, 10 Id. 300.) The only errors assigned by the appellants are founded upon the statement; and as that cannot be noticed, they cannot be reviewed by this Court.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.