Donovan

Donovan v. Aetna Indemnity Co. of Hartford

Good Law
10 Cal. App. 723·1909 Cal. App. LEXIS 302·103 P. 365
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 29, 1909Civ. No. 602.California3,714 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Hall, J.

In this case two appeals are presented in one transcript—an appeal from the judgment, taken March 9, 1908, and an appeal from the order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial, taken April 16, 1908.

Preliminary to taking up the main points involved in the appeal it is necessary to dispose of the objection made by the respondent that the statement on motion for a new trial is properly no part of the record upon either appeal for want of jurisdiction in the court to settle the same. At the hearing upon the settlement of the statement, respondent objected to the settlement thereof upon the grounds, first, that the notice of intention to move for a new trial was not filed within the time provided by law, and, second, that the proposed statement' on motion for a new trial was not. served upon plaintiff within the time provided by law. These objections are preserved and presented in a bill of exceptions properly settled. -

"Whether or not the notice of intention to move for a new trial was filed in time is not important, for it is perfectly clear that the proposed statement was not served in time. At the hearing of the objections to the settlement of t'he statement it was…

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.