Heinlen

Heinlen v. Heilbron

Good Law
1892 Cal. LEXIS 738·94 Cal. 636·30 P. 8
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 4, 1892No. 14489California1,256 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Harrison, J.

Motion to dismiss the appeal.

In this action, pending in the county of Tulare, the superior court of that county made an order on the ninth day of February, 1891, denying the defendants’ motion for a new trial. The attorney for the defendants resided and had his office in Fresno, and on the 28th of March, 1891, filed with the clerk of the above court a notice of an appeal by the defendants from the order denying their motion for a new trial. On the day previous, he had deposited in the post-office at Fresno a registered letter, containing a copy of the notice of appeal, inclosed in a sealed envelope, with the- postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the attorney for the plaintiff, as follows:. “G. A. Heinlen, Esq., attorney at law, Lemoore, Tulare County, Cal.” The letter containing the notice of appeal was not delivered to Mr. Pleinlen at Lemoore, but was forwarded to him through the mail from that place to San José’ on the thirty-first day of March, and was received by him through the post-office at San José on the fourth day of April, 1891. The attorney for the respondent now moves to dismiss the *639 appeal, upon the ground “ that the notice of appeal from the' said order was…

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.