# Barr v. Mountjoy

> California Court of Appeal · February 18, 1942 · 50 Cal. App. 2d 40

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9633801

## Case

- **Full name:** MARY BARR, Respondent, v. JEANNETTE MOUNTJOY Et Al., Appellants
- **Court:** California Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** February 18, 1942
- **Citations:** 50 Cal. App. 2d 40; 122 P.2d 676; 1942 Cal. App. LEXIS 886
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Wood
- **Judges:** Stephens, Wood
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9633801

## Opinion text

WOOD (W. J.), Concurring.
I concur in the judgment. The appellants have not shown by a proper record that the order from which the appeal is prosecuted was erroneous. The bill of exceptions repeats the findings and judgment and sets forth the notice of intention to move for a new trial and an affidavit (which in my opinion is wholly insufficient) in support of the motion for a new trial. The bill of exceptions also contains the “memorandum for decision” in which the trial judge states that the accident was “unavoidable,” and the statement made by the judge upon granting the new trial. The bill of exceptions is barren of any reference to the evidence or to the rulings made by the court during the course of the trial. For aught that appears in the record the order may have been granted because of errors occurring during the course of the trial. The record being in this condition, no course is open to us other than to affirm the order.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9633801. Public record. Not legal advice.