Legal Opinion

Mott v. Foster

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1872No. 3,597PublishedCited by 11 opinions

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventeenth Judicial District, County of Los Angeles. Judgment in ejectment was entered for the plaintiff June 22d, 1872. Notice of intention to move for a new trial was filed by the defendant July 1st, 1872. On the 5th of July the plaintiff signed a stipulation agreeing that the defendant should have until July 8th in which to file his statement on motion for a new trial, the plaintiff’s attorney being temporarily absent from the…

Read the full summary

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventeenth Judicial District, County of Los Angeles. Judgment in ejectment was entered for the plaintiff June 22d, 1872. Notice of intention to move for a new trial was filed by the defendant July 1st, 1872. On the 5th of July the plaintiff signed a stipulation agreeing that the defendant should have until July 8th in which to file his statement on motion for a new trial, the plaintiff’s attorney being temporarily absent from the county. The motion for a new trial was denied and the defendant appealed from the judgment and from the order denying his…

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court:

The stipulation signed by the plaintiff in person goes for nothing. He had at the time an attorney of record who, as such, had the exclusive management and control of the case. (Board of Commissioners v. Younger, 29 Cal. 149.) The temporary absence of the attorney from the county at the *73time the stipulation of plaintiff was obtained does not affect the rule in this respect or operate the displacement of the attorney of record. It results that the statement, being filed too late, must be disregarded, and, no error appearing on the judgment roll, the judgment and order denying new…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Board of Commissioners (No. 2) v. YoungerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. People v. MerkourisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
  2. Wells Fargo & Co. v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  3. Crescent Canal Co. v. MontgomeryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  4. Kellogg v. WinchellDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1921
  5. Boca & Loyalton R.R. v. Superior Court of Lassen Cty.California Supreme Court · 1907

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API