Hoyt v. San Francisco & North Pacific Railroad
California Supreme Court
Appeal—Dismissal — Failure to File Transcript in Time—Rule of Supreme Court.— Rule 3 of the supreme court, providing that if the transcript is on file when notice is given of a motion to dismiss the appeal for failure to file the transcript in time, that shall be a sufficient answer to the motion, will not preclude the dismissal of an appeal, where the notice of motion is given before the filing of the transcript, although the transcript is filed a few hours later on the…
Read the full summary
Appeal—Dismissal — Failure to File Transcript in Time—Rule of Supreme Court.— Rule 3 of the supreme court, providing that if the transcript is on file when notice is given of a motion to dismiss the appeal for failure to file the transcript in time, that shall be a sufficient answer to the motion, will not preclude the dismissal of an appeal, where the notice of motion is given before the filing of the transcript, although the transcript is filed a few hours later on the same day. Id.—Priority in Time—Fractions of Day. — Although" in some cases courts will not take cognizance of fractions of…
1Opinion of the CourtDe Haven, J.
The appeal in this case was dismissed by the court in Bank on December 11, 1890, and a rehearing thereafter granted. Upon full consideration we are satisfied with our former opinion, and for the reasons therein stated, the motion to dismiss the appeal must be granted.
It is true that for some purposes a day is regarded as an indivisible unit, and that in the cases where such rule properly applies, courts refuse to look into fractions of a day for the purpose of determining which of two acts was first in point of time; but when the question whether one legal right shall have priority over…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- National Bank v. BurkhardtSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Louisville v. Savings BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Hill v. FinniganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
3Cited by9 opinions
- In Re GubelmanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1925
- Scoville v. AndersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Tompkins v. MontgomeryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Murphy v. KrummCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Chapman v. Bank of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.