Rath

Rath v. Vaughan

Good Law
1919 Cal. App. LEXIS 324·45 Cal. App. 38·187 P. 44
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 16, 1919Civ. No. 3121.California1,192 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Conrey, J.

On motion to dismiss appeal in an unlawful detainer action, on the ground that the transcript has not been 'filed within the time allowed by law. Notice of this motion was served and filed on September 10, 1919. Rule II prescribes, as the general rule, that the printed transcript shall be filed within forty days after the appeal was perfected. But “if a proceeding for settlement of a bill of exceptions ■ which may be used in support of such appeal is pending or may still be instituted, the time aforesaid shall not begin to run until the settled and authenticated bill of exceptions has been filed, or the time in which a proceeding for such a bill of exceptions may be instituted has' expired, or such proceeding if instituted has been dismissed by the trial court.”

By the clerk’s certificate it appears that notice of entry of judgment was served on defendant on the thirty-first day of March, 1919. Notice of intention to move for a new trial was filed on April 7th, and notice of appeal from the judgment was filed on April 10th. The motion for new trial was never brought on -for hearing. Therefore, under the limitations established by the term's of section 660 of the Code of Civil…

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.