Russel v. Armador
California Supreme Court
This was an appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District. A motion was made to dismiss the appeal. 1st. Because no statement as is required by the 338th section of the act entitled an “Act to regulate proceedings in civil cases in Courts of justice of this State,” passed April 29th, 1851, has ever been , filed by the appellant in the causó. 2d. Because no abstract of the case has ever been furnished to the Court. 3d.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District. A motion was made to dismiss the appeal. 1st. Because no statement as is required by the 338th section of the act entitled an “Act to regulate proceedings in civil cases in Courts of justice of this State,” passed April 29th, 1851, has ever been , filed by the appellant in the causó. 2d. Because no abstract of the case has ever been furnished to the Court. 3d. Because the transcript is uncertain, &c.; and 4. Because the undertaking is insufficient.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Justice Heydenfeldt.
Section 180, chap. 5 of the Practice
Act prescribes, that “upon the trial of an issue of fact by the Court, its decisions shall be given in writing, and filed with the clerk within ten days after the trial took place. In giving the decision, the facts found and the conclusions of law shall be separately stated. Judgment upon the decision shall be executed accordingly.”
We are of opinion that this law is not merely directory, and we have no right to destroy or impair its efficacy. It is intended by it, that the decision of the Court…
2Cited by8 opinions
- F.People v. MonierCalifornia Supreme Court · 2017
- Briggs v. EgganSupreme Court of Kansas · 1877
- Nichols v. CarterMissouri Court of Appeals · 1892
- Vermule v. ShawCalifornia Supreme Court · 1854
- Crane v. First National Bank of McHenryNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1913
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.