Perrine

Perrine v. Comstock

Good Law
118 Cal. App. 98·1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 133·4 P.2d 814
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 2, 1931Docket No. 6921.California891 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Bishop, J.

Appellant presents two appeals, both from orders denying him relief from his default in not preparing and serving a proposed bill of exceptions within time. Appellant having been unsuccessful in a trial had before the court without a jury, judgment in favor of the several defendants and against him was entered February 19, 1929. Notice of this entry was served upon appellant February 23d, and on February 26th he filed his notice of intention to move for a new trial. This last-mentioned notice was served upon the attorneys for defendants Comstock and Nyberg only, not upon any of the other twelve defendants in the case. Thereafter, March 20th, the motion for a new trial was made and denied, and notice of the order was served upon appellant March 23d. (He had filed his notice of appeal from the judgment, March 21st.) Under the code provisions, as then effective, appellant had ten days, after receiving notice of the entry of judgment, within which to prepare and serve a proposed bill of exceptions, except in so far as the proceedings on a motion for a new trial extended the time, ten days, from receipt of notice of the decision on the motion. (Sec. 650, Code Civ. Proc.) At most,…

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.