Bruce v. Tunstall

California Court of Appeal · Civ. No. 1898 · 1938-01-13 · Published · 24 Cal. App. 2d 370 · 75 P.2d 120 · 1938 Cal. App. LEXIS 911

E. S. BRUCE v. H. P. TUNSTALL

Area: civil
Panel: Jennings (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 — Jennings

JENNINGS, J.

The certificate of the county clerk of the county wherein this action was tried has been submitted in support of this motion by respondents to dismiss the appeal herein for failure of appellant to file a transcript on appeal within the required time. Prom the aforementioned certificate it appears that notice of appeal from a judgment rendered in favor of respondents was filed on July 10, 1937, that no proceedings for settlement of a bill of exceptions or for the preparation of a reporter’s transcript are now pending in the trial court, the proceedings therefore initiated by appellant H. P. Turnstall having been terminated by order of the trial court on October 22, 1937. Under these circumstances the motion is proper and must be granted. (Christensen v. Couey, 136 Cal. App. 268 [28 Pac. (2d) 689].)

The appeal is dismissed.

Barnard, P. J., and Marks, J., concurred.

Cites, in this corpus

Christensen v. Couey Docket No. 1290. · 1934-01-15

Cited by

Thrasher v. Thrasher Civ. 2331 · 1939-05-10