Bailey

Bailey v. Hoffman

Caution
1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 522·99 Cal. App. 347·278 P. 498
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 7, 1929Docket No. 6676.California1,611 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Sturtevant, J.

The plaintiff commenced an action against the defendants to recover on a book account. The defendants filed a joint answer. The action was tried before the court sitting without a jury. The court made findings of fact in favor of the plaintiff, and from a judgment entered thereon the defendants have appealed and have brought up a bill of exceptions which, on its face, appears to be a digest only of the proceedings below.

The plaintiff makes a preliminary objection to the hearing of the appeal. He calls attention to the fact that more than sixty days elapsed between 'the date the judgment was entered and the date of the filing of the notice of appeal. The defendants reply that , the judgment was entered July 25, 1928, that on July 30, 1928, they served a notice of intention to move for a new trial, that afterward they made their motion and that the motion was denied September 17, 1928. Thereupon they show that within thirty days they filed their notice of appeal. Under these facts their notice of appeal was filed in due time. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 939.)

The first point made by the defendants is that the court erred in receiving in evidence the plaintiff’s alleged book account.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.