Symons v. Bunnell
California Supreme Court
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County denying a motion for new trial, and from an order striking appellant’s statement on motion for a new trial from the files, and from an order refusing to vacate such order. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtDe Haven, J.
The order of September 16, 1891, striking the appellant’s statement on motion for a new trial from the files is a special order made after judgment, and the appeal therefrom not having been taken within sixty days from its date must be dismissed. (Sutton v. Symons, 97 Cal. 475.) The order referred to being itself an appealable order {Calderwood v. Peyser, 42 Cal. 113; Clark v. Crane, 57 Cal. 633) no appeal lies *224from the order refusing to vacate it, and the appeal from this latter order must also he dismissed.
In the absence of the statement the motion for a new trial was properly denied.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Clark v. CraneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
- Calderwood v. PeyserCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
- Sutton v. SymonsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Sutton v. SymonsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
3Cited by7 opinions
- Beach v. Spokane Ranch & Water Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1901
- MacHado v. KinneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- State ex rel. Finlen v. District Court of the Second Judicial DistrictMontana Supreme Court · 1902
- State v. GriffinIdaho Supreme Court · 1895
- De Mitchell v. CroakeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.