Barnhart v. Fulkerth
California Supreme Court
Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtPaterson, J.
Respondents have moved to dismiss the appeal herein on the following grounds: 1. The notice of motion for a new trial was not served or filed within the time allowed by law; 2. Said notice was not signed by the attorneys of record; 3. The statement was not served or filed within the time allowed by law.
There is an apparent conflict of authority upon the subject, but we think the better rule is stated in Watson v. Sutro, 86 Cal. 500, where it is held that if the proceedings on appeal are regular, the appeal should not be dismissed upon grounds showing that the court below had no jurisdiction…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Smith v. WesterfieldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Watson v. SutroCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
3Cited by13 opinions
- Ryer v. RyerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Bell v. StaackeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Johnson v. Phenix InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- In re Estate of ScottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Estate of YoungCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.