Legal Opinion

Clark v. McCain

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 14, 1930No. Docket No. 109PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

AMES, J., pro tem.

This, is an appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate and set aside a judgment rendered against the plaintiffs, who were not present, in person or by counsel, at the time of the trial, based upon the surprise and excusable neglect of plaintiff. The appeal was not taken upon a bill of exceptions nor was a record perfected pursuant to section 953a et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, there is appended to the transcript on appeal a stipulation of counsel designated “certificate of attorneys” which is in the following language:

“It is hereby agreed that the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Harrison v. CousinsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1911
  2. Manuel v. FlynnCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907
  3. Pouchan v. GodeauCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1913
  4. Pioneer Investment & Trust Co. v. MunceyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1917

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Guyot v. CassabCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
  2. Salinas v. Riverside Finance Co.California Court of Appeal · 1932
  3. Kwon v. KwonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
  4. Bartholomew v. CrossCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
  5. Mason v. Coalinga Union High School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API