Tyrrell v. Baldwin
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco. Motion to dismiss appeal. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMcKinstry, J.
— Motion to dismiss appeal.
If the notice of appeal from the judgment was served and filed the day before the judgment was entered,, the appeal must be dismissed. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 936, 939; McLaughlin v. Doherty, 54 Cal. 519; Thomas v. Anderson, 55 Cal. 43; People v. Center, 66 Cal. 567; Kimple v. Conway, 69 Cal. 71; Schroeder v. Schmidt, 71 Cal. 399.)
At the foot of the decree appealed from, as the same is set forth in the transcript, are the words “ Decree re*193corded December 8, 1885,” and attached to the transcript, as amended, is the clerk’s certificate that “the' decree was entered of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- McLaughlin v. DohertyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Kimple v. ConwayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Thomas v. AndersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- People ex rel. Love v. CenterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- Schroder v. SchmidtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
3Cited by8 opinions
- Tyrrell v. BaldwinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Durant v. ComegysIdaho Supreme Court · 1891
- Wilhelm v. McLaughlinSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1958
- Rossi v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
- Armour Fertilizer Works v. Abella BastónSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1934
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.