Beggs

Ransome-Crummey Co. v. Beggs

Caution
185 Cal. 279·1921 Cal. LEXIS 542·196 P. 487
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMarch 10, 1921S. F. No. 9738.California382 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Motion to dismiss appeal on ground that same was not taken within the time allowed by law. Judgment was entered November 22, 1915, an order denying a motion for new trial was entered April 14, 1916, and the appeal was taken April 24, 1916, i. e., within thirty days after the entry of such order. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 939.) The notice of intention to move for a new trial, however, was not served and filed until February 23, 1916, which was more than sixty days after the entry of the judgment, with the result that no proceeding on motion for new trial had been inaugurated or was pending at the expiration of the sixty days after entry of judgment within which an appeal may be taken from a judgment in the absence of any pending proceeding for new trial. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 939.) [1] It is claimed by respondent that the provision of section 939 of the Code of Civil Procedure, extending the time for appeal from the judgment “if proceedings on motion for a new trial are pending” has no application unless such proceeding is instituted within the sixty days after entry of judgment within which an appeal may be taken from the judgment in the absence of any new trial proceeding; and 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.