Dorland v. McGlynn
California Supreme Court
The attorney for the appellant 'stated in his affidavit that he had relied upon the rules as last published iu the printed volumes of reports. The other facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court:
This cause was dismissed during the first week of the present term upon ex parte motion made by the respondent under the fourth rule of the Court, it appearing by the certificate of the Clerk below that the appellant had failed to file the transcript within the time required by Rule 2. The appellant now moves, upon motion and affidavit, to restore the appeal under Rule 3. The ground upon which the motion is based is that the attorney of the appellant was ignorant of the rules of this Court as adopted in May, 1871, which shortened the time of filing the transcript to the period of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hagar v. MeadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
3Cited by4 opinions
- Signs v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1926
- Lightle v. IvancovichNevada Supreme Court · 1875
- Sanders v. WardenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
- Skaggs v. BridgmanNevada Supreme Court · 1916