Case Name: D. N. HERSHEY, Respondent, v. A. KNESS, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1888-02-14
Citations: 75 Cal. 115
Docket Number: No. 12240
Parties: D. N. HERSHEY, Respondent, v. A. KNESS, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 75
Pages: 115–116

Head Matter:
[No. 12240.
Department Two.
—February 14,1888.]
D. N. HERSHEY, Respondent, v. A. KNESS, Appellant.
New Trial — Specifications. —Where there are no specifications, the party cannot be heard on motion for new trial.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Yolo County, and from an order refusing a new trial.
The action was brought for the claim and delivery of certain personal property. The defendant attempted to justify the taking under a writ of attachment issued in an action against one Elliott. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant moved for a new trial, and his motion being denied, appealed from the judgment and order. The appellant had printed specifications in the transcript. But they were not part of the statement; and had been stricken from the transcript on a separate motion. The further facts are stated in the opinion.
R. Clark, for Appellant.
Hudson Grant, for Respondent.
The statement on motion for new trial contains no specification of the particulars in which the evidence is insufficient to justify the findings, nor any particular errors of law on which the appellant intends to rely. The statement should therefore be disregarded. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 659; Barrett v. Tewksbury, 15 Cal. 356; Hutton v. Reed, 25 Cal. 487; Moore v. Murdock, 26 Cal. 524; Crowther v. Rolandson, 27 Cal. 385; Burnett v. Pacheco, 27 Cal. 410; Carleton v. Townsend, 28 Cal. 219; Love v Sierra N. L. W. & M. Co., 32 Cal. 650; 91 Am. Dec. 602; Reamer v. Nesmith, 34 Cal. 626; Sanchez v. McMahon, 35 Cal. 224; Beans v. Emanuelli, 36 Cal. 120; Thompson v. Patterson, 54 Cal. 546; Phillips v. Lowry, 54 Cal. 584; Preston v. Hearst, 54 Cal. 596; Eddelbuttel v. Durrell, 55 Cal. 279; Graham v. Stewart, 68 Cal. 375; Hartman v. Rogers, 69 Cal. 644.)

Opinion:
Hayne, C.
All the appellant's specifications were stricken from the transcript, for the reason that they were mere interpolations, and not a part of the statement as settled by the judge of the court below. This took away all right to be heard on the motion for new trial.
The appellant's objections to the sufficiency of the complaint are without merit.
We therefore advise that the judgment and order be affirmed.
Foote, C., and Belcher, C. 0., concurred.
The Court.
For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment and order are affirmed.