Skernswell

Skernswell v. Schonfeld

Good Law
1942 Cal. LEXIS 303·20 Cal. 2d 503·127 P.2d 529
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 2, 1942S. F. No. 16673California907 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Traynor, J.

This ease raises a problem of procedure upon which the parties have presented a stipulation of facts. In March, 1940, Julius Neustadt brought an action in the superior court against Joseph Skernswell, and on May 26, 1941, that court gave judgment in favor of Neustadt. On *504 May 29th findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the judgment were filed with the county clerk. On July 10th a motion for a new trial was denied, and on July 18th defendant filed notice of appeal. The appeal is now pending in this court. On July 28th the trial judge, at plaintiff’s request, signed an order setting time of hearing the accounting by the referee, an order directing the referee to take possession of real property and to collect all rents and income, and an order directing the referee in partition to sell real property. Copies of the orders were served on defendant’s attorney the same day but the orders were not filed with the clerk of the court until the following day. On August 1st the trial judge, at plaintiff’s request, signed a written order requiring a bond on appeal. This order was filed with the clerk of the court on the same day after a copy had been served on defendant’s attorney. None…

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.