Klarquist

Klarquist v. Security Trust & Savings Bank

Good Law
1923 Cal. App. LEXIS 486·61 Cal. App. 548·215 P. 398
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 30, 1923Civ. No. 4154.California279 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Houser, J.

This matter involves, first, a motion by respondent to dismiss an appeal, and, secondly, a motion by appellant that it be relieved from its default in failing to file its transcript on appeal "within the time permitted under the rules of this court. A lapse of sixty-six days occurred between the settling and filing of the bill of exceptions in the superior court and .the date of the notice to dismiss the appeal, and the transcript on appeal was not offered for filing until two weeks later.

An affidavit by counsel for appellant in opposition to the motion to dismiss the appeal, as well as in support of its motion to be relieved from its default in not having filed the transcript within the forty-day period permitted under rule II of this court ( 176 Pac. vii ), shows that “both prior and subsequent to the 18th day of December, 1922, affiant had conversations with Mr. Redwine, attorney for the respondent, the substance of which was that Mr. Redwine wanted to know if the case could not be settled, if the bank would not consider a compromise, etc., to which affiant replied that he wished to look more thoroughly into the law on the question and would like to have a little more time to…

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.