Koelling

Koelling v. Rutz

Good Law
108 Cal. 664·1895 Cal. LEXIS 900·41 P. 781
Supreme Court of CaliforniaSeptember 4, 1895S. F. No. 219California413 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Harrison, J.

A motion is made to dismiss the appeal for failure to file the transcript within the time prescribed by the rules of this court, and that the respondent be allowed damages upon the ground that the appeal is not taken in good faith, but for the purpose of hindering and delaying the plaintiff in the collection of the judgment. In support of the latter part of the motion the attorney for the respondent has filed an affidavit stating that, after the rendition of the judgment, and prior to the service of the notice of appeal, one of the attorneys for the defendant proposed to him that the plaintiff accept a less sum than that for which judgment had been given, and informed him that, unless such less sum was accepted in full payment, an appeal would be taken, and the plaintiff delayed in the collec *665 tion of the judgment for an indefinite period. To the suggestion that the time for presenting a bill of exceptions or a motion for a new trial had expired, and that the appeal must be upon the judgment-roll alone, which was free from error, the attorney replied that delay was all he wanted, and that the plaintiff had better take a smaller sum at once than the full sum after the disposal…

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.