Baron

Baron v. Held

Good Law
1 Cal. Rptr. 181·176 Cal. App. 2d 252·1959 Cal. App. LEXIS 1476
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 15, 1959Civ. No. 6186California610 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

The defendant and respondent moved for a dismissal of the appeal. On May 14, 1959, the clerk of this court gave notice to appellant’s counsel requiring the payment of filing fee under rule 10 of the Rules on Appeal. On September 30, 1959, the respondent gave notice of her motion to dismiss the appeal for failure to comply with rule 10, setting date of hearing for October 13. On that day the plaintiff and appellant Bart G. Baron appeared and requested and was granted a continuance in order that he might secure counsel to represent him and oppose the motion. Through his present counsel, he now asks to be relieved from his default and in support of such request asserts that appellant is unfamiliar with legal matters, that he did not understand that it was necessary for him to pay the filing fee, and that he relied upon other counsel whom he had consulted to take care of his interests. He tendered the filing fee and offers to file a brief.

It is stated in Estate of Wolper, 146 Cal.App.2d 249 [ 303 P.2d 578 ] : “While it is true that the court has the power to relieve a party from default suffered through inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect or mistake, these words are not…

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.