Paige

Paige v. Roeding

Caution
1892 Cal. LEXIS 962·96 Cal. 388·31 P. 264
Supreme Court of CaliforniaOctober 25, 1892No. 13738California1,353 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Garoutte, J.

— This was an action to recover certain sums of money from the defendants, Roeding, Perkins, and Richardson, as stockholders of the Wheeler Fruit Packing Company, a corporation. Plaintiffs appealed from the judgment rendered by the trial court, and the case is now before us upon a judgment roll containing no bill of exceptions, but consisting simply of the pleadings, findings and judgment. Subsequently to the filing of the transcript, respondents brought to this court another set of findings and another judgment made and entered in the same cause several months prior to the filing of the findings and entry of the judgment found in the transcript, and now assert them to be the true findings and judgment, and ask that they be inserted in the transcript as part of the judgment roll and in lieu of the judgment and findings now therein contained. Plaintiffs have appealed from the judgment set out in the transcript, and if that judgment constitutes no part of the judgment roll, but is to be displaced by this prior judgment, then this appeal must fall, for it will have no foundation upon which to rest.

This brings us to the question, What constitutes the judgment roll in this case? In…

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.