Freund v. Hamilton Const. Co.
Martha Freund v. Hamilton Construction Company, appellants.john E. Hamilton v. Martha Freund
- Area
- civil
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.
A motion by Martha Freund, a party to the above-entitled actions for an order dismissing the appeals of Hamilton Construction Company and John E. Hamilton and John E. Hamilton individually and doing business under the name and style of Hamilton Construction Company taken therein, upon the ground that said appeals have not been prosecuted with due diligence.
[1] It appears there has been delay in the filing of the transcript on appeal in this court, but the record fails to show that the proceedings for a transcript in the court below have been terminated and the motion must for that reason be denied. (Rule 6, sec. 1, Rules of the Supreme Court; Crocker v.Crocker, 76 Cal.App. 606 [245 P. 438]; Smith v. Jaccard,20 Cal.App. 280 [128 P. 1023, 1026].)
The motion is denied.
Cites, in this corpus
- Crocker v. Crocker Docket No. 3096. · 1926-02-23
- Smith v. Jaccard Civ. No. 1098. · 1912-11-02