Schieffery v. Tapia
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtThornton, J.
The appeal from the judgment was not taken in time, and must therefore be dismissed.
It is said that the notice of intention to move for a new trial was not served and filed in time. The record shows that due service of the statement on motion for a new trial was admitted by the defendant’s attorney, and that this statement was allowed and settled by the judge, “both parties being present by their attorneys.” There is nothing in the statement to show that defendant’s attorney made any objection to the service of the notice of intention on admitting service of it or of the statement, or on the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Martin v. ZellerbachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
- People ex rel. Pixley v. StrattonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
- Megerle v. AsheCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- Poppe v. AthearnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
- Gray v. National Steamship Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1885
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Mendocino County v. PetersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1905
- Simpson v. BuddCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Shively v. PennoyerOregon Supreme Court · 1895
- Warner Valley Stock Co. v. MorrowOregon Supreme Court · 1906
- Campos v. Great American Ins.Supreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1928
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.