Summary
In Hancock v. Thom, 46 Cal. 43, and in D.I. Nofziger Lumber Co. v. Waters, 10 Cal.App. 89 [ 101 P. 38], without adequate discussion, it was held that the law in effect at the time the judgment was rendered by the lower court was controlling, while in First National Bank v. Henderson, 101 Cal. 307 [35 P. 899], it was held that the appellate court must dispose of the case in accordance with the law existing at the time of its own decision.
Summary of this case from Tulare Dist. v. Lindsay-Strathmore DistOpinion
Appeal from the District Court, Seventeenth Judicial District, County of Los Angeles.
The plaintiff brought the action for one thousand six hundred dollars, the value of professional services as an attorney at law; judgment was rendered in his favor for twenty-six dollars and thirty cents, without costs; he moved for a new trial, which was refused, and he appealed from the order refusing it.
COUNSEL:
C. G. W. French and Henry Hancock, for Appellant.
Thom & Ross and H. K. S. O'Melveny, for Respondent.
OPINION
By the Court:
The application for a new trial was made and denied before the Code of Civil Procedure took effect, and must therefore be determined by the provisions of the former Practice Act.
There is no statement filed or settled, nothing is found in the record by which it can be even imagined that the motion was supported, except a fugitive affidavit, in which a general history of the case is detailed; but this affidavit bears no identification as having been used at the hearing of the motion in the Court below. No error appearing in the action of the Court, the order denying a new trial must be affirmed here, and it is so ordered.
Remittitur forthwith.