Little v. Jacks
MILTON T. LITTLE v. DAVID JACKS
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Ross (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 — Ross
Ross, J.
It appears from the bill of exceptions in this cause that. on January 9, 1884, the court made and filed its written findings of fact and conclusions of law, and entered its judgment thereon, of which defendant had due notice, on the same day. Within ten days thereafter defendant gave plaintiff notice of his intention to move the court to vacate and set aside the judgment. This was not a notice of intention to move for a new trial. (Sawyer v. Sargent, 65 Cal. 259; Martin v. Matfield, 49 Cal. 42.) The time allowed by statute for the giving of a notice of the latter character expired with the tenth day after the notice of the decision was given. To allow a notice filed within statutory ' time, but which was radically defective, to be amended after the expiration of that time would be in effect to extend the time allowed by statute for the giving of such notices, which the courts have no power to do.
Order reversed.
McKinstry, J., and McKee, J., concurred.
Hearing in Bank denied.
Cites, in this corpus
- Sawyer v. Sargent No. 9,428 · 1884-05-20
- Martin v. Matfield No. 4,424 · 1874-07-01
Cited by
- Sitkei v. Frimel Civ. 16217 · 1948-05-04
- Smith v. Ibos Civ. 10440 · 1937-09-17
- Hoover v. Wolfe S.F. No. 6345. · 1914-03-09
- Strange v. Strange Civ. No. 1273. · 1913-11-19
- Union Collection Co. v. Oliver S.F. No. 5769. · 1912-06-04
- Packer v. Doray No. 18,105 · 1893-10-14
- Packer v. Doray 18033 · 1893-05-20
- Mazkewitz v. Pimentel No. 12792 · 1890-03-18