Summary
In Frankel v. Deidesheimer, 83 Cal. 44, the Supreme Court of California said that the petitioner was charged with notice that the judge might strike out the matter which was in fact stricken out, and that it did not appear that any request was made of the judge below to delay the settlement of the bill or a ruling on the motion for a new trial until an application could be made to the supreme court to prove the exception desired, and that under the facts of the case the application was made too late.
Summary of this case from Lewis v. HyamsOpinion
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sierra County, and from an order denying a new trial.
COUNSEL
William F. Herrin, and H. L. Gear, for Appellant.
Hundley & Gale, S. B. Davidson, and Smith & Ford, for Respondents.
JUDGES: In Bank. Mr. Justice Harrison, being disqualified, did not participate.
OPINION
THE COURT This cause has been long pending in this court, and has been reargued twice. One of the justices is disqualified from participating in its decision, and of the six other justices three are of opinion that the judgment should be affirmed, and three are of opinion that the judgment should be reversed. Repeated consultations have ended in the same disagreement, and there is no probability of any change in the opinions of those now constituting the court, or of any immediate change in the personnel of the court. Under these circumstances we think that the judgment should be affirmed, for the reasons stated in Luco v. De Toro , 88 Cal. 26.
The judgment and order are affirmed.