Marshall v. Taylor
California Supreme Court
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County denying a motion to dismiss an action, and from an order granting a motion for an entry of j udgment nunc pro tunc. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtPaterson, J.
Plaintiff recovered a judgment against the defendant in the court below for the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars damages on December 18, 1890. On that day her counsel gave to the clerk the form of judgment, and paid him the costs of the action. The verdict was duly recorded, and the judgment was filed, but was not entered. In due time the defendant moved for a new trial. The motion was denied, and the defendant appealed on June 26,1891. The notice of appeal served upon the plaintiff states that the defendant appeals to the supreme court from the final judgment given, made, rendered, and…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Gray v. PalmerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
- Casement v. RinggoldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
- Thompson v. WhiteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
3Cited by12 opinions
- In re ClarkeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Phipps v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
- Spencer v. TrouttCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- City of Los Angeles v. HannonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926
- Grass v. Rindge Co.California Court of Appeal · 1927
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.