Pacific Mutual Life Insurance v. Shepardson
PACIFIC MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA v. DUDLEY SHEPARDSON
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Searls (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 — Searls
Searls, C. J.
This is a motion to dismiss an appeal,, and must be granted for the following reasons:— 1. The affidavit of service of the notice of appeal does not state positively its service, but only that the affiant alleges and believes he served it.
2. The affidavit fails to show that the affiant and the person served resided or had their offices in different places (Cunningham v. Warneky, 61 Cal. 507), or that there was any communication by mail between Colusa and San Francisco. (Reed v. Allison, 61 Cal. 461; Steele v. Supervisors of Merced County, 62 Cal. 6.)
The appeal is dismissed.
Sharpstein, J., Paterson, J., McKinstry, J., and Thornton, J., concurred.
Cites, in this corpus
- Steele v. Board of Supervisors No. 7,518 · 1882-11-08
- Cunningham v. Warnekey No. 8,039 · 1882-10-09
- Reed v. Allison No. 7,215 · 1882-10-03
Cited by
- East Side Canal & Irragation Co. v. Superior Court Civ. No. 1529. · 1916-05-23