Anglo-California T. Co. v. Oakland Rys.
Anglo-California Trust Co. v. Oakland Railways (A Corporation), Defendants Oakland Railways (A Corporation)
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- The Court (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
[1] The motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the attorney who signed the notice of appeal and prepared the transcript was not the attorney of record and that there had been no substitution of attorneys is granted on the authority of Harrigan v. Bolte, 67 Cal. xxi [8 P. 184].
On August 3, 1923, the supreme court modified the foregoing order as follows:
Addendum
Application to modify order of dismissal herein by providing that the dismissal is without prejudice to another appeal. Inasmuch as the appeal was dismissed because of lack of authority of attorney to file notice of appeal, therefore, in effect, no notice of appeal whatever has been filed, the order heretofore made is modified to provide that the dismissal is without prejudice. *Page 388
Cites, in this corpus
- Reynolds v. Reynolds No. 8849 · 1885-10-10
Cited by
- Carrara v. Carrara Civ. 15746 · 1953-11-04
- Youlian v. Williams L. A. 19576 · 1947-03-25
- Jackson v. Jackson Civ. 7227 · 1945-12-01
- Echlin v. Superior Court S. F. 16170 · 1939-04-28
- Weare v. Superior Court Docket No. 6418. · 1929-01-04
- Starkweather v. Eddy Docket No. L.A. 8201. · 1925-04-20
- Anglo-California Trust Co. v. Oakland Railways S. F. No. 10884. · 1924-04-11