Gulf Mail Steamship Co. v. W. A. Hammond Steamship Co.

Good Law
1924 Cal. App. LEXIS 453·67 Cal. App. 420·227 P. 938
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 23, 1924Civ. No. 4891.California1,044 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Sure, J.

This is an appeal from an order of the superior court amending nunc pro tunc a previous order granting a new trial.

After the transcript, certified by the clerk and by the trial judge, had been filed in this court, respondent made herein a motion for affirmance of the judgment upon technical grounds. It appears that appeal was taken in due time (sec. 953a, Code Civ. Proc.), transcript prepared and filed, and notice given of presentation of transcript to the trial judge for approval. The trial judge approved the transcript on January 3d. Thereafter appellant discovered that through inadvertence notice of appeal had been omitted from the transcript, and without further notice to respondent appellant inserted in the transcript the notice of appeal, and procured from the trial judge and clerk new certifications dated January 9th. Respondent complains that failure to give due notice of such recertification invalidated the whole procedure. We fail to see wherein any substantial right of respondent was affected. The transcript, recertified, was, with the exception of the inclusion of the notice of appeal, the same. Admittedly, appeal had been properly taken. The omission of the notice…

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.