Aregood

Aregood v. Traeger

Good Law
1928 Cal. App. LEXIS 664·94 Cal. App. 227·270 P. 1002
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 2, 1928Docket No. 6168.California956 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Thompson, J.

This is a motion to dismiss an appeal on the ground that the notice of appeal was not filed within the time required by section 939 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Judgment was entered on August 13, 1926. Notice of intention to move and motion for a new trial were filed on October 1, 1926, and an order denying the motion was entered in the minutes on January 21, 1928. Notice of appeal was not filed until July 6, 1928. Prefacing the more general discussion and to avoid possible eon- fusion it should be added that no notice of entry of judgment appears to have been filed, hence under the opinion in Deacon v. Deacon, 201 Cal. 190 [ 255 Pac. 798 ], the power of the court to pass upon the motion for a new trial had not expired at the time of the entry of the order denying it on January 21, 1928. No notice of this latter ruling was served upon defendant.

The appellant contends that where a motion for a new trial is pending the time within which an appeal may be taken does not expire until “ten days after notice of decision denying said motion, or of other termination thereof.” He bases this argument upon his assertion that section 953a of the Code of Civil Procedure from which we have…

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.