Reynolds v. Lawrence
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Twelfth District. Motion to dismiss the appeal. Appellant served on respondent a notice of appeal, dated January 1th, 1859, and respondent accepted service of notice same day. This notice was filed with the Clerk of the Court, January 11th, 1859. The Clerk certifies, January 12th, that an undertaking on appeal was filed according to law.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Twelfth District. Motion to dismiss the appeal. Appellant served on respondent a notice of appeal, dated January 1th, 1859, and respondent accepted service of notice same day. This notice was filed with the Clerk of the Court, January 11th, 1859. The Clerk certifies, January 12th, that an undertaking on appeal was filed according to law. The brief of the appellant states it was filed January 12th, 1859. On the eighteenth of October, 1859, the parties entered into a stipulation, as follows: “ It is agreed that the above entitled cause may be continued for the present term, and…
1Opinion of the Court
On the motion to dismiss the appeal at the January term, Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court
Field, C. J. and Cope, J. concurring.
The motion to dismiss is denied. The motion comes too late. The true construction of the stipulation of eighteenth October, 1859, is that the respondent should retain at the succeeding term the rights he had *361at the time of the stipulation—not that he should be entitled to new and additional privileges If this were intended, it should have been distinctly stated. On the eighteenth of October, the respondent had no right, according to our rules, to make…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Wall v. MagnesSupreme Court of Colorado · 1892
- Spencer v. McMasterWyoming Supreme Court · 1884
- Wixon v. Bear River & Auburn Water & Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1864