gno.law

Poole v. Grand Circle, Women of Woodcraft

California Court of Appeal · Civ. No. 1009. · 1911-10-06 · Published · 119 P. 201 · 17 Cal. App. 229 · 1911 Cal. App. LEXIS 94

JOHN R. POOLE, Respondent, v. GRAND CIRCLE, WOMEN OF WOODCRAFT, a Corporation, Appellant

Area
civil
Panel
The Court. &#8212 (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

THE COURT.

Motion to dismiss appeal. The only reason suggested in support of said motion is the failure of appellant, before the filing of said motion, to cause to be transmitted to this court, a copy of the judgment-roll. It does appear that within seven days after service of notice of motion, and before the hearing thereof, appellant caused a transcript embracing such judgment-roll to be filed. All that is essential to a review of the action of the superior court is now before this court. Under rule XV of the supreme court, [144 Cal. xlvii, 78 Pac. x], respondent’s motion may be considered as an objection to the transcript, affecting appellant’s right to be heard, and the same was answered by filing the transcript embracing the judgment-roll. “The object of the above-mentioned rule is to enable the appellant to remedy any defect or omission of the transcript for the purpose of enabling him to present his appeal upon the merits, and is to be liberally construed for that purpose.”

(Warren v. Hopkins, 110 Cal. 509, [42 Pac. 987].)

Motion to dismiss appeal denied.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by