Hole v. Takekawa
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County denying a motion for relief from the effect of a failure to present within the time allowed by law a proposed bill of exceptions for use on a motion for a new trial. Z. B. West, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtAngellotti, J.
This is an appeal by plaintiff from an order denying his motion for relief under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure from the effect of his failure to present within the time allowed by law his proposed bill of exceptions for use on a motion for new trial in the above entitled action. The judge refused to settle such bill on May 8, 1911, on the ground that the same had not been served within the time required by law. On June 9, 1911, the motion for relief was made, the grounds thereof being “mistake, inadvertence, surprise and excusable neglect,” and this motion was denied on June 16,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Moore v. ThompsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- County of Los Angeles v. LankershimCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Dahlberg v. GirschCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
- Hawxhurst v. RathgebCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Pico v. SepulvedaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
3Cited by15 opinions
- Akley v. BassettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- Stanton v. Superior Court of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
- Gray v. RobinsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
- Knapp v. City of Newport BeachCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- Avery v. Associated Seed Growers, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1963
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.