Pretzer

Pretzer v. California Transit Co.

Good Law
102 Cal. App. 630·283 P. 361
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 18, 1929Docket No. 278.California1,523 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Barnard, J.

This motion to" dismiss the appeal herein was made on the ground that appellant had failed to file his opening brief within the time permitted by the rules of the court and the requirements of law. It appears from the -record herein, and -affidavits filed in connection with this motion, that the transcript upon this appeal was filed in the District Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, on July '29, 1929. The time for appellant to file its opening brief expired August 28, 1929. Respondent’s counsel signed a stipulation extending this time to September 28, 192'9, then another stipulation extending the time, to October 28, 1929. On October 30, 1929, although the appellant was then in default, a third stipulation was signed, extending the time to November 18, 1929. Respondent signed this stipulation because appellant claimed to have been misled by previous negotiations for a settlement. On October 28, 1929, respondent’s attorney had notified appellant’s attorneys by letter, that all negotiations for a settlement were terminated. On or about November 14, .1929, respondent’s counsel refused a further extension. Appellant thereupon applied to the court for a thirty-day extension,…

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.