Legal Opinion

Ackerman v. Schultz

California Supreme Court

Decided April 17, 1918No. L. A. No. 4214. Department TwoPublishedCited by 10 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtMelvin, J.

Cleveland Schultz sought to appeal from a judgment against him on the cross-complaint of Bert. T. Dem-mitt, and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

Respondent says that the appeal from the judgment was taken too late. Judgment was entered January 27, 1914. Appeal therefrom was dated, served, and filed January 20, 1915. Under section 939 of the Code of Civil Procedure, before its amendment in 1915, this was too late, as the pend-ency of the proceedings on motion for new trial did not extend the time for appeal from the judgment.

We are, therefore, limited to a consideration of the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Lovehsohn v. WardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Severance v. Knight-Counihan Co.California Supreme Court · 1947
  2. Swasey v. De L'EtancheCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
  3. Adams v. Southern Pacific Co.California Court of Appeal · 1930
  4. Spencer Kennellt, Ltd. v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  5. Moskovitz v. LefrancoisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API