gno.law

Spear v. Monroe

California Supreme Court · L. A. No. 6381. · 1919-12-22 · Published · 186 P. 149 · 181 Cal. 728 · 1919 Cal. LEXIS 418

WILLIAM C. SPEAR Et Al., Petitioners, v. CHARLES MONROE, as Judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County Et Al., Respondents

Proceeding
writ
Outcome
other — 611].) [2] The fact that a notice of appeal ha
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

THE COURT.

Proceeding in mandate looking to compelling the judge of the trial court to settle and certify a proposed record on appeal under section 953a of the Code *729 of Civil Procedure, and to requiring the clerk to certify and forward record of judgment-roll, etc., prepared under said section. The petition shows that the notice requesting preparation of said record required by the section was not filed within ten days after notice of entry of the judgment.

[1]

The failure to file such a notice within the time specified in the section goes to the jurisdiction in so far as the preparation of the record is concerned, at least in the absence of an order of the trial court relieving the party from his default in the matter of filing such notice. (See Estate of Keating, 158 Cal. 109, [110 Pac. 109];

Fiske v. Gosbey, 168 Cal. 334, [143 Pac. 611].)

[2]

The fact that a notice of appeal has been filed is altogether immaterial in so far as the effect of a failure to file this notice for the preparation of a record is concerned.

The order of the judge, made ex parte, granting further time for the preparation of the record on account of the inability of the reporter to finish the same within the time specified in the section, is likewise immaterial here.

[3]

It was not an order relieving the party from his default in the matter of filing the notice, and was made by the judge in ignorance of the fact that no notice had been filed in time.

[4]

The court was justified in vacating the same and in refusing to settle and certify the transcript, as was also the clerk in refusing to forward any record prepared under that section.

The application for a writ of mandate is denied.

All the Justices concurred, except Melvin, J., who was absent.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by