50 Cal. 120
J. H. BUDD and W. L. DUDLEY
v.
DRAIS and DRAIS
No. 2279
Supreme Court of California
July, 1875
Appeal from the District Court, Fifth Judicial District, County of San Joaquin.
The plaintiffs are attorneys at law, and brought an action to recover for legal services rendered for the defendants, who were husband and wife, and recovered judgment. The case was decided in 1870, when Mr. Justice Temple was on the bench, and is now reported, because referred to in the case of Drais v. Hogan, post, p. 121. The plaintiffs appealed from an order granting a new trial.
JUDGES: Temple, J.
OPINION
TEMPLE, Judge
The District Court granted a new trial, but the record does not show that a motion for new trial was ever made, nor is there an agreed or settled statement on such motion, or any affidavits, as required by the Practice Act. The transcript contains what purports to be a statement on motion for a new trial, but it is neither settled nor agreed to, nor does it contain any specifications whatever of the grounds upon which the moving party relies. The statement should have been disregarded for both reasons given.
The order granting a new trial is reversed, and cause remanded.