Fighiera

Fighiera v. Dewhirst

Good Law
1916 Cal. App. LEXIS 277·32 Cal. App. 245·162 P. 655
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 4, 1916Civ. No. 2187.California1,547 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Conrey, J.

This is a proceeding in mandamus to require the respondent, as judge of the superior court in and for the county of San Bernardino, to settle a bill of exceptions in an action wherein the petitioners were plaintiffs and one William F. Radis was defendant. After the entry of judgment in that action the plaintiffs in due time served and filed their notice of intention to move for a new trial, and-later served and filed notice that said motion would be made ■ on the nineteenth day of June, at 2 o’clock P. M. At that time, the attorney for plaintiffs not appearing and the attorney for defendant' being present, the motion was denied. Thereafter, on July 27, 1916, the plaintiffs served on the defendant a proposed bill of exceptions. On August 2d the defendant served upon plaintiffs numerous amendments to the proposed bill of exceptions; specifying, however, together therewith his objections to the signing, settlement, and allowance of the bill and insisting that his proposed amendments were to be considered only in the event that the court should have first overruled said prior objections. These objections set forth, in addition to the facts above noted, certain other facts, including…

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.