Hotchkiss

De Pedrorena v. Hotchkiss

Good Law
1892 Cal. LEXIS 877·95 Cal. 636·30 P. 787
Supreme Court of CaliforniaAugust 15, 1892No. 14831California1,006 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Temple, J.

This appeal is from the judgment, without a bill of exceptions, and practically by defendant Hotchkiss alone; for although the notice of appeal is signed by Hotchkiss as attorney for the defendants, the other defendant filed a disclaimer in the lower court, and no point is made here in his behalf.

Objection is made by respondent to the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the appeal, on the ground that it does not appear that the notice of appeal was served. The rules of this court provide that “ exceptions or objections to the transcript, statement, the bond or undertaking on appeal, the notice of appeal, or to its service, or any technical objection or exception to the record in civil cases, affecting the right of the appellant to be heard on the points of error assigned, which can be cured on suggestion of diminution of the record, must be taken and notified to the appellant in writing, at least ten days before the hearing, or they will not be regarded.”

This was not done in this case, and it is quite evident that the objection is one which may be avoided in the mode pointed out. Respondent’s attorney states in his brief that he has filed an affidavit in this court, which…

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.