Opinion
Department Two
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Yolo County, and from an order refusing a new trial.
COUNSEL:
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.)
JUDGES: Hayne, C. Foote, C., and Belcher, C. C., concurred.
OPINION
HAYNE, Judge
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.
The Court. -- For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment and order are affirmed.