Riggs

Riggs v. Guedemann

Good Law
1928 Cal. App. LEXIS 667·94 Cal. App. 217·270 P. 1001
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 1, 1928Docket No. 6289.California379 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Conrey, J.

Respondent moves to dismiss the appeal of defendants from a judgment entered against them on the 23d of July, 1928. The motion is made on the ground that appellants have not filed in this court a transcript of the record, and that the time allowed therefor by law and the rules of court has expired.

Appellants filed their notice of appeal on July 31st, and a second notice of appeal on September 4th. There has been no motion for a new trial, and no proceedings for a bill of exceptions are pending. No application for reporter’s transcript under section 953a of the Code of Civil Procedure, was made until September 1st. The reporter’s transcript was filed with the clerk of the superior court on September 17th and presented to the judge for approval. The judge refused to certify the transcript, and there is not now pending any proceeding relating thereto.

The second notice of appeal was unauthorized. {Brown v. Plummer, 70 Cal. 337 [ 11 Pac. 631 ]; Nathan v. Porter, 36 Cal. App. 356, 359 [ 172 Pac. 170 ].) The forty days allowed appellant for filing his transcript of record expired on September 9th. (See Rules I and V of this court.) Counsel for appellant contends that his time to file…

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.