Utah-Nevada Co. v. De Lamar
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, denying an application to he relieved from default in failing to propose a statement on appeal in time, and refusing to settle the same. J. M. Seawell, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
The appeal is from an order of the superior court denying the application of appellant to be relieved from its default in failing to propose, within the time required by law, its statement on appeal from the order denying its motion for a new trial, and refusing to settle the statement.
On February 26, 1907, findings and a judgment in favor of the defendant were filed and entered. The motion for a new trial was made upon affidavits and upon the minutes of the court and it was denied on June 27, 1907. On July 2, 1907, the trial judge made an order extending plaintiff’s time thirty days within…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Stonesifer v. KilburnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Banta v. SillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Ingrim v. EppersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Vinson v. Los Angeles Pacific RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- Alferitz v. CahenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Howell v. PedersenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
- Lien v. MorrillCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933