Summary
In Brotherton v. Hart, 11 Cal. 405, it was held that " where a party stipulates that a motion made for a new trial should be denied, he cannot questionthe correctness of the order in this Court."
Summary of this case from Mecham v. McKayOpinion
Appeal from the District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District, County of San Francisco.
COUNSEL:
D. W. Perley, for Appellants.
E. A. Lawrence, for Respondent.
JUDGES: Terry, C. J., at the July Term, 1858, delivered the opinion of the Court. Field, J., concurring.
OPINION
TERRY, Judge
In this case the parties, by stipulation, consented that the motion for a new trial should be denied. Having consented to the order, they cannot now question its correctness. ( Meerholtz v. Sessions, 9 Cal. 277.)
Judgment affirmed.