N. Am. Dredging Co. of Nevada v. Outer Harbor Dock & Wharf Co.
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Chase, Overton & Lyman, and Overton, Lyman & Plumb, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the Court
RICHARDS, J., pro tem.
T his is an appeal from a judgment rendered in the defendant’s favor after its demurrer to the plaintiff’s third amended complaint had been sustained, the plaintiff declining to further amend its pleading. Respondent urges a preliminary objection to the hearing of this appeal upon the ground that it was taken too late. On December 7, 1914, attorneys for the appellant were served with a notice of the entry of judgment in the action on December 3, 1914. The judgment was not, however, actually entered until December 18, 1914. Such notice was, therefore, premature and…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- President of Delaware & Hudson Canal Co. v. Pennsylvania Coal Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Hamilton v. Home InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Holmes v. RichetCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Lyon v. BertramSupreme Court of the United States · 1858
- Fairchild-Gilmore-Wilton Co. v. Southern Refining Co.California Supreme Court · 1910
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Wilde v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
- W. H. Blodgett Co. v. Bebe Co.California Supreme Court · 1923
- Jameson v. WarrenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
- Palmer v. FixCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
- Einot, Inc. v. Einot Sales Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1951
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.