Menzies

Menzies v. Watson

Good Law
105 Cal. 109·1894 Cal. LEXIS 1119·38 P. 641
Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 15, 1894No. 15756California1,093 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Temple, J.

This is an appeal from an order made after judgment. It is a proceeding after judgment to correct an alleged mistake as to the date of the entry of the judgment. The record does not show how the alleged error affects any rights of the moving party, but it is stated in the briefs that the defendant, having taken an appeal from the judgment, was confronted in this court by a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it was taken more than one year after the judgment was entered. The judgment purports to have been entered December 6, 1892. The appeal was taken December 8, 1893.

The moving party does not pretend to know when the judgment was actually entered, but claims that it was not before December 10, 1892.

*111 The motion was based principally upon the affidavit of H. A. Massey, who was a clerk for Mastick, Belcher & Mastick, who were the attorneys for the defendants.

His affidavit is broad enough, perhaps, to entitle the defendant to the relief demanded, but the affiant was also called as a witness at the hearing of the motion, and his cross-examination shows that he did not know all the matters stated in his, affidavit to be true.

He was sent to the clerk’s office “…

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.