Bellegarde v. San Francisco Bridge Co.
J. B. BELLEGARDE v. SAN FRANCISCO BRIDGE COMPANY
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Thomas B. McFarland (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 — McFarland
McFarland, J.
This cause is before us upon a motion of respondent to dismiss the appeal from the judgment for failure to file the transcript within the time prescribed by rule 2 of this court.
But the certificate of the clerk shows that no appeal has ever been taken,—the notice of appeal having been given January 7, 1889, and no undertaking on appeal having been filed until January 28, 1889. In such a case the rule heretofore seems to have been to refuse to *62hear the party who claims to have appealed, and to refuse to “ dismiss,”—there being, really, nothing to dismiss. (Biagi v. Howes, 63 Cal. 384; Reed v. Kimball, 52 Cal. 325.)
The motion to dismiss is denied.
Sharpstein, J., Paterson, J., Works, J., and Beatty, C. J., concurred.
Rehearing denied.
Cites, in this corpus
- Biagi v. Howes · 1883-05-11
- Reed v. Kimball No. 5734 · 1877-07-01
Cited by
- Curtin v. Salomon Docket No. 3195. · 1926-12-28