Hiestand

Hiestand v. West

Good Law
1920 Cal. App. LEXIS 608·45 Cal. App. 441·187 P. 967
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 12, 1920Civ. No. 3250.California1,619 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Conrey, J.

Application for writ of mandate to compel respondent judge to settle and certify a bill of exceptions.

The procedure authorized for the purpose of obtaining a bill of exceptions is prescribed by section 650 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is provided that within ten days after a proposed bill has been by one party served upon the adverse party, the latter may, within ten days, propose amendments and serve the same, or a copy thereof, upon the other party. “The proposed bill and amendments-must, within ten days thereafter be presented by the party seeking the settlement of the bill, to the judge who tried or heard the case, upon five days’ notice to the adverse party, or be delivered to the clerk of the court for the judge. . . . When received from the clerk, the judge must designate the time at which he will settle the bill, and the clerk must immediately notify the parties of such designation. ... If no amendments are served, or if served are allowed, the proposed bill may be presented, with the amendments, if any, to the judge, . . . for settlement without notice to the adverse party.”

[1] In a certain action of Snearly et al. against these petitioners, judgment was entered…

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.