Utah-Nevada Co. v. De Lamar

Good Law
1909 Cal. App. LEXIS 340·9 Cal. App. 759·100 P. 884
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 1, 1909Civ. No. 543.California1,608 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Burnett, J.

The appeal is from an order of the superior court denying the application of appellant to be relieved from its default in failing to propose, within the time required by law, its statement on appeal from the order denying its motion for a new trial, and refusing to settle the statement.

On February 26, 1907, findings and a judgment in favor of the defendant were filed and entered. The motion for a new trial was made upon affidavits and upon the minutes of the court and it was denied on June 27, 1907. On July 2, 1907, the trial judge made an order extending plaintiff’s time thirty days within which to prepare and serve the statement. Similar orders for five, seven and seven additional days, respectively, were made by Judge Coffey in the absence of Judge Seawell, the trial judge, and none of these orders was served upon the defendant or. his counsel. On August 24, 1907, plaintiff served upon defendant its proposed statement on appeal. On September 3, 1907, the defendant served his proposed amendments but expressly objected to the settlement of the statement upon the ground that the court had no jurisdiction to settle the same, for the reason that it was not served in time: “That'…

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.