Peralta

Santa Paula Waterworks v. Peralta

Good Law
1895 Cal. LEXIS 1157·5 Cal. Unrep. 779·42 P. 239
Supreme Court of CaliforniaOctober 21, 1895L. A. No. 18California423 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Motion by respondent to dismiss the appeal for failure of appellant to file a brief. We think it sufficiently appears from the affidavits filed by appellant in resistance of the motion that the failure to file the brief arose from a misunderstanding between appellant and his counsel as to whom appellant desired to represent him in this court. Daly & Toland were the attorneys for appellant in the lower court. After the appeal was perfected, appellant, who is a Spaniard, and speaks and understands English very imperfectly, informed Mr. Toland, as the latter understood him, that he intended to get Mr. J. L. Murphy, of Los Angeles, to attend to the case in the supreme court. Subsequently appellant called on Mr. Murphy and told him that he wished to secure his assistance in the case on the appeal. He was informed by Mr. Murphy that he would assist in the case if agreeable to Daly & Toland, and suggested that appellant see the latter on the subject. Appellant, it seems, did not understand the suggestion as to the necessity of his seeing Daly & Toland, and went away in the belief that he had done *780 all that was required and necessary in the premises to secure the services of Mr.…

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.