gno.law

Taliaferro v. Davis

California Court of Appeal · Civ. 20659 · 1963-06-14 · Published · 217 Cal. App. 2d 215 · 31 Cal. Rptr. 693 · 1963 Cal. App. LEXIS 1898

E. A. TALIAFERRO, Cross-Complainant and Appellant, v. DOROTHY DAVIS, Cross-Defendant and Respondent

Proceeding
appeal from an order
Trial court
Superior Court of Contra Costa County
Trial judge
Norman A. Gregg
Outcome
dismissed — Dismissed.
Area
civil
Panel
Murray Draper (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion — Draper

*216 DRAPER, P. J.

Cross-complainant appeals from an order striking his cross-complaint as to respondent. Memorandum decision announced grant of the motion and directed respondent's counsel to prepare formal order. That order was dated and ified December 20, 1961.

Appellant had 60 days within which to file his notice of appeal (Rules on Appeal, rule 2(a)

* ) That time ran from ffling of the order (id., rule 2(b) (2), (4)

** ). The first day of the 60 was December 21 (O'Donnell v. City & County of San Francisco, 147 Cal.App.2d 63, 66 [304 P.2d 852]). The sixtieth day thus was February 18, 1962. Since that date fell on Sunday, the notice would be timely if filed Monday, February 19 (Code Civ. Proc., §~ 12, 12a). Appellant did not file it until Tuesday, February 20. The time limit for filing this notice is jurisdictional (In re Del Campo, 55 Cal.2d 816, 817 [13 Cal.Rptr. 192, 361 P.2d 912]). This court has no discretion, but must dismiss the appeal on its own motion (Langan v. Langan, 89 Cal. 186, 195 [26 P. 764]; and see Estate of Hanley, 23 Cal.2d 120, 123 [142 P.2d 423, 149 A.L.R. 1250]).

Appeal dismissed.

Saisman, J., and Devine, J., concurred.

* Now California Rules of Court, rule 2(a).

** Now California Rules of Court, rule 2(b) (2), (4).

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by