Bernal v. Wade
46 Cal. 640
Opinion
The time to file the petition for a rehearing expired on November eighth. The petition was placed in the express office at San José for transmission to the Clerk of this Court, and should have reached him in time to be filed, but it was not, in fact, received until the tenth of November, when the remittitur had been sent to the Court below. The case is not distinguishable from that of Hanson v. McCue, 43 Cal. 178, and the remittitur must, therefore, be recalled and the petition for a rehearing placed on file.
So ordered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Bernal v. Wade, 46 Cal. 640 (Cal. 1873).
46 Cal. 640 (Bernal v. Wade) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Estate of Hanley v. Hanley
142 P.2d 423 (California Supreme Court, 1943)
Isenberg v. Sherman
7 P.2d 1006 (California Supreme Court, 1932)
Trumpler v. Trumpler
55 P. 1008 (California Supreme Court, 1899)