Isleton Canning Co. v. Superior Court

Good Law
104 Cal. App. 687·1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 1075·286 P. 447
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 26, 1930Docket No. 7352.California838 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Sturtevant, J.

This is an application for a writ of prohibition to stop the respondent court from settling a bill of exceptions in the case of Hechtman v. Isleton Canning Co. the basic case was tried before the court sitting with a jury. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and a judgment was entered thereon. Written notice of the entry of the judgment was given by the plaintiff to the defendant August 23, 1929. The defendant did not give the plaintiff a written notice of the entry of the judgment. On September 18, 1929, the plaintiff served a notice of intention to move for a new trial. September 27, 1929, the defendant made a motion to strike said notice from the files. Apparently at the same time the trial court heard the motion for a new trial. Whether it made any order on the motion to strike does not appear, but it does appear that the trial court denied the motion for a new trial. On October 31, 1929, the plaintiff served a notice of appeal. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff’s notice of intention to move for a new trial came too late and that it is a nullity. Continuing, it claims that the notice of appeal also came too late and that it is a nullity and therefore…

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.