Court Opinion

ID: 9737327
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:22:08.442206+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:23:58.121483
License: Public Domain

THE COURT.

In denying the petition for rehearing herein, it may be said that in our opinion the state of the evidence in the case is such that the refusal of the trial court to give the two instructions set out in appellant’s petition did not result in a miscarriage of justice, and consequently in no event would such refusal constitute grounds for reversal of the judgment. (Const. Cal., art. VI, sec. 4%.)  Moreover, the suggestion that the refusal to give these two instructions was error is made for the first time in the petition for rehearing, and it has been repeatedly declared that a rehearing will not be granted under such circumstances. (Estate of Edwards, 126 Cal. App. 152 [14 Pac. (2d) 318, 15 Pac. (2d) 194]; Mann v. Brison, 120 Cal. App. 450 [7. Pac. (2d) 1110, 9 Pac. (2d) 257]; Pasadena Ice Co. v. Reeder, 206 Cal. 697 [275 Pac. 944, 276 Pac. 995]; In re Novotny’s *620Estate, 94 Cal. App. 782 [271 Pac. 923]; People v. New York Indemnity Co., 113 Cal. App. 487 [298 Pac. 849].)
Rehearing denied.
A petition by appellants to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on October 3, 1935.