gno.law

Seaboard Surety Corp. v. Hollywood State Bank

California Court of Appeal · Civ. No. 11149 · 1936-09-11 · Published · 16 Cal. App. 2d 757 · 60 P.2d 876

THE SEABOARD SURETY CORPORATION OF AMERICA (a Corporation) v. HOLLYWOOD STATE BANK (a Corporation)

Area
civil
Panel
Crail (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 — Crail

CRAIL, P. J.

This case comes before us upon the respondent’s motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground *758that the notice of appeal was not filed within the time required by law, the contention being that appellant was a day late, and that contention depending in turn on when the order of the trial court was entered in the minutes. The case is very similar to the case of Berman v. Blankenship Motors, 140 Cal. App. 134 [34 Pac. (2d) 1035], and on the authority of that case the motion is denied.

Wood, J., and Gould, J., pro tem,, concurred.

Cites, in this corpus