Bollinger v. Bollinger
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Charles W. Slack, V. A. Scheller, and Adolph Loessel, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the CourtMcFARLAND, J.
This is an appeal from the order of the court denying defendant’s motion for a new trial. To the hearing upon the merits respondent interposes the preliminary objection that plaintiff’s bill of exceptions was not pre sented in time. The facts in this regard are the following: Defendant’s attorneys had presented their proposed bill of exceptions, and plaintiff’s attorneys had presented their proposed amendments thereto in due season: Defendant’s attorneys gave notice of the rejection of all of the proposed amendments and named the day and hour at which they would present to the judge for…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Shutte v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1873
- Kelly v. Ning Yung Benevolent Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1905
- Ryan v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1895
- Long v. StrausIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
- Erwin v. . BaileySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1898
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Pollak v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Valentine v. Provident Mutual Life Insurance Co.California Court of Appeal · 1936
- Riedy v. BidwellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
- Reimel v. HouseCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
- Silverman v. ThompsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.