Boston v. Haynes

31 Cal. 107
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1866
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 31 Cal. 107 (Boston v. Haynes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Boston v. Haynes, 31 Cal. 107 (Cal. 1866).

Opinion

By the Court, Sawyer, J.:

The notice of appeal appears by the record to have been served on the 12th, and filed on the 13th of September, and respondents move to dismiss on that ground. It has often been held that the statute requires the filing to precede, or be contemporaneous with the service. The appellant’s attorney seeks to obviate the objection by affidavit that the filing was, in fact, on the same day of the service; but this affidavit is met by a counter affidavit that the facts and the record correspond. If it were admissible, therefore, to contradict the record by affidavit, the appellant fails to satisfactorily show a mistake. But this Court must be governed by the record, as certified from the District Court. This Court has no authority to correct the records of the District Courts. If there is any error in the records of those Courts, the application to correct it must be made to the Court in the record of which the error exists. The record in this Court consists of a transcript of a record, or part of a record, of the Court of original-jurisdiction, and we must be governed by the record as we find it.

Appeal dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Verdier v. Verdier
257 P.2d 723 (California Court of Appeal, 1953)
Brush v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.
208 P. 997 (California Court of Appeal, 1922)
Mendocino County v. Peters
82 P. 1122 (California Court of Appeal, 1905)
Boggess v. Harris
39 S.W. 565 (Texas Supreme Court, 1897)
Warren v. Hopkins
42 P. 986 (California Supreme Court, 1895)
Ward v. Springfield Fire & Marine Insurance
42 P. 119 (Washington Supreme Court, 1895)
State v. Central Pacific Railroad
21 Nev. 94 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1890)
State v. C. P. R. R. Co.
25 P. 442 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1890)
Boyd v. Burrel
60 Cal. 280 (California Supreme Court, 1882)
People v. Gough
2 Utah 69 (Utah Supreme Court, 1880)
Lyon County v. Washoe County
8 Nev. 177 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1873)
Satterlee v. Bliss
36 Cal. 489 (California Supreme Court, 1869)
Foy v. Domec
33 Cal. 317 (California Supreme Court, 1867)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
31 Cal. 107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boston-v-haynes-cal-1866.