160    Pac.    1040;    Kerry    v.    Pacific  12.  CampbeU    v.    Canty,   162   CaL

Marine   Co.,   121    CaL   564,   66   Am.  382,  123  Pac.  266   (where  the  error

St.  Rep.  65,  54  Pac.   89;   Patterson  as  to  amount  was  too  small  to  jus-

V.    Sharp,   41    CaL    133;    Hooper   v.  tify  a  new  trial);  Pereira  v. Pereira,

Wells,  27  CaL  11,  85  Am.  Dec.  211  156  CaL  1,  134  Am.  St.  Rep.  107,  23

(judgment  modified  on  respondent's  L.  R.  A.  (N.  S.)  880,  103  Pac.  488;

filing  of  his  consent  thereto);  Dake  PearsaU  v.  Henry,  153  CaL  314,  95

Advertising  Co.  v.  Fielding  J.  Stil-  Pac.  154,  159;  Perine  v.  Lewis,  128

son  Co.,  22   Cal.  App!  31,   133  Pac.  Cal.  236,  60  Pac.  422,  772;  Sun  Ins.
327    (a   default  judgment   in   excess  Co.  v.  White,  123  CaL  196,  55  Pac.
of  the  amount  sued  for  will  be  cor-  902;  Pox  v.  Hale  &  Norcross  Silver

rected  by  the  appellate  court).  Min.  Co.,  122  Cal.  219,  54  Pac.  731

8.  Davis  V.  Lamb,  5  CaL  Unrep,  (per  Harrison,  J.);  Beamer  v.  Fre€-
765,  35  Pac.  306.  man,  84  pal.  554,  24  Pac.  169;  Gar-

9.  King   V.   Southern   Pacific    Co.,      pentier    v.    Gardiner,    29    Cal.    160;
"109  CaL  96,  29  L.  R.  A.  755,  41  Pac.      Muller  v.  Boggs,  25  Cal.  175;  Conlin

786.  V.  Emanuel  Lewis  Inv.  Co.,  26  CaJ.
10.  Bayless  v.  Reed,  31  Cal.  App.      App.  388,  147  Pac.  472.     See  supra,
T>ec.  1079,  190  Pac.  211.  S  581.
988


2  Cal.  Jur.  Appeal  and  Erbob.  §§  585, 586

not  prevail  in  the  action,  or  because  he  prefers  to  remit
such  damages  rather  than  submit  to  the  delay  consequent
apon  a  new  trial.**

rV.    Bevebsaij.
