Case Name: SMITH v. DAVIS
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1880
Citations: 55 Cal. 26
Docket Number: No. 6,577
Parties: SMITH v. DAVIS.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 55
Pages: 26–28

Head Matter:
[No. 6,577.
Department No. 2.]
SMITH v. DAVIS.
Statement on Motion eob New Tbial—Engbossment.—The statement on motion for new trial, and amendments, as allowed hy the Court, must be engrossed into one, and authenticated by the signature of the Judge, in order to be regarded as the statement required by law, and to be considered on appeal. Accordingly, the Court, upon the ground that the statement was not engrossed, affirms the order of the Court below.
Pleading—Answeb—Ebaud.—The answer of defendant, (as set forth below) held to be sufficient.
Appeal from a judgment for the defendants, and from an order denying a new trial, in the Eighteenth District Court, County of San Bernardino. McNealt, J.
The transcript contains the original draft of a statement pro posed by the plaintiff, amendments proposed by the defendants, and counter-amendments proposed by the plaintiff; and the following certificate of the «Tudge:
“The foregoing amendments proposed by defendant are allowed, and the further proposed amendment by plaintiff is also allowed; and said statement of plaintiff as amended is hereby settled as correct. W. T. McNealy, District Judge.”
The action is for the recovery of personal property. The answer denies all the allegations of the complaint, except the taking, and alleges in effect that the defendant took the goods as Sheriff of San Bernardino County, by virtue of executions against the plaintiff’s vendor (Gilman) ; and that the property was, at the time of the levy, the property of said Gilman, and that all interest of the plaintiff in the property was by virtue of a pretended sale to her by the said Gilman; and that the said sale is and was void, and fraudulently made for the purpose of hindering, delaying, and defrauding creditors of said Gilman, and without any consideration from plaintiff. The other facts are stated in the opinion.
C. W. C. Rowell, A. B. Paris, and Byron Waters, for Appellant.
Rolfe & Curtis, and J. D. Boyer, for Respondent:
Cited, as to the insufficiency of the statement, Baldwin v. Ferre, 23 Cal. 461; Skillman v. Riley, 10 id. 300; Marlow v. Marsh, 9 id. 259; People v. Edwards, id. 291.

Opinion:
By the Court (from the Bench) :
In this cause there is no statement on motion for a new trial which this Court is authorized to consider.
It appears that the proposed statement and amendments were allowed by the Judge of the Court below, but the statement and amendments were never engrossed and authenticated by the signature of the Judge.
Such documents, not engrossed into one, and attested by the signature of the Judge, have never been regarded as the statement required by law, and have never been considered by this Court on appeal. (Baldwin v. Ferre, 23 Cal. 461.) The order denying the motion for a new trial must therefore be affirmed.
There was also an appeal from the judgment. The only point to which our attention is called in the last-mentioned appeal is the order overruling the demurrer to the amended answer of the defendant.
We have examined the answer carefully, and fail to find any errors in the ruling of the Court.
Judgment and order affirmed.