![Alexander v. Mcdonald](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![Alexander v. Mcdonald](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
Alexander v. Mcdonald
1948.CA.40438 ; 195 P.2d 24; 86 Cal. App. 2d 670
-
- 0,99 €
-
- 0,99 €
Beschreibung des Verlags
This question cannot be considered by us for the reason that the rule is established that the point that the damages are inadequate cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must be presented to the trial court on a motion for a new trial before an appellate court will consider whether the damages are inadequate or not. (Baum v. Murray, 23 Wn.2d 890 [162 P.2d 801, 807]. See also Wood v. Keller, 72 Cal. App. 2d 14, 17 [163 P.2d 904]; Williams v. A. R. G. Bus Co., 47 Cal. App. 568, 570 [190 P. 1036]; Bate v. Jolin, 206 Cal. 504, 508 [274 P. 971]; cases cited in 2 New Cal. Dig., McKinney (1946), Appeal and Error, p. 273, § 237.)