Erving v. Napa Valley Brewing Co.
California Court of Appeal
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Nathan Coombs, John P. York, and Frank L. Coombs, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
Respondent has moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that “the appellant, Napa Valley Brewing Company, a corporation, has failed to serve and file the printed transcript of the record within the time prescribed by Rule II [144 Cal. xl, 78 Pac. vii] of the supreme court.” The motion is supported by the certified statement of the county clerk setting forth the facts required by Rule VI [144 Cal. xliii, 78 Pac. ix] of said supreme court. By said certificate it appears that the notice of appeal was filed on January 11, 1911; “that no bill of exceptions or statement on appeal has been made or…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hamaker v. KeatingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
- Union Lumber Co. v. Metropolis Construction Co.California Court of Appeal · 1910
- Gervais v. JoyceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1911
3Cited by7 opinions
- Willett v. Schmeister Manufacturing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1926
- H. G. B. Alexander & Co. v. MartzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
- Erving v. Napa Valley Brewing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1912
- Clinton v. ShawCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
- Klarquist v. Security Trust & Savings BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.