gno.law

Boston v. Haynes

California Supreme Court · · 1866-07-01 · Published · 31 Cal. 107

WILLIAM W. BOSTON v. THOMAS J. HAYNESs.

Area
civil
Panel
Sawyer (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 — Sawyer

By the Court, Sawyer, J.:

The notice of appeal appears by the record to have been served on the 12th, and filed on the 13th of September, and respondents move to dismiss on that ground. It has often been held that the statute requires the filing to precede, or be contemporaneous with the service. The appellant’s attorney seeks to obviate the objection by affidavit that the filing was, in fact, on the same day of the service; but this affidavit is met by a counter affidavit that the facts and the record correspond. If it were admissible, therefore, to contradict the record by affidavit, the appellant fails to satisfactorily show a mistake. But this Court must be governed by the record, as certified from the District Court. This Court has no authority to correct the records of the District Courts. If there is any error in the records of those Courts, the application to correct it must be made to the Court in the record of which the error exists. The record in this Court consists of a transcript of a record, or part of a record, of the Court of original-jurisdiction, and we must be governed by the record as we find it.

Appeal dismissed.

Cited by