Kaltschmidt v. Weber
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Arthur H. Barendt, Charles E. Naylor, and William P. Hubbard, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
This is an appeal from an order denying the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.
The court did not err in settling the bill of exceptions, notwithstanding the fact that the day fixed for the presentation thereof in the notice given by the plaintiff was eleven days after the defendant had served his proposed amendments thereto. It was clearly shown by the affidavits and by all the circumstances of the case that the mistake of one day in fixing the time was the result of an excusable inadvertence on the part of plaintiff’s attorney, and this made a proper case for relief under section 473 of the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Wren v. WrenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Stuart v. LordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
3Cited by66 opinions
- Weinberger v. Board of Public InstructionSupreme Court of Florida · 1927
- Perkins v. Sunset Tel. and Tel. Co.California Supreme Court · 1909
- Mayborne v. Citizens Trust & Savings BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
- Nolan v. NolanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Smith v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
61 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.