Bruce v. Tunstall

California Court of Appeal

Bruce v. Tunstall

75 P.2d 120, 24 Cal. App. 2d 370, 1938 Cal. App. LEXIS 911

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJanuary 13, 1938

DocketCiv. No. 1898

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 75 P.2d 120 (Bruce v. Tunstall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bruce v. Tunstall, 75 P.2d 120, 24 Cal. App. 2d 370, 1938 Cal. App. LEXIS 911 (Cal. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

JENNINGS, J.

The certificate of the county clerk of the county wherein this action was tried has been submitted in support of this motion by respondents to dismiss the appeal herein for failure of appellant to file a transcript on appeal within the required time. Prom the aforementioned certificate it appears that notice of appeal from a judgment rendered in favor of respondents was filed on July 10, 1937, that no proceedings for settlement of a bill of exceptions or for the preparation of a reporter’s transcript are now pending in the trial court, the proceedings therefore initiated by appellant H. P. Turnstall having been terminated by order of the trial court on October 22, 1937. Under these circumstances the motion is proper and must be granted. (Christensen v. Couey, 136 Cal. App. 268 [28 Pac. (2d) 689].)

The appeal is dismissed.

Barnard, P. J., and Marks, J., concurred.

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

JENNINGS, J.

The certificate of the county clerk of the county wherein this action was tried has been submitted in support of this motion by respondents to dismiss the appeal herein for failure of appellant to file a transcript on appeal within the required time. Prom the aforementioned certificate it appears that notice of appeal from a judgment rendered in favor of respondents was filed on July 10, 1937, that no proceedings for settlement of a bill of exceptions or for the preparation of a reporter’s transcript are now pending in the trial court, the proceedings therefore initiated by appellant H. P. Turnstall having been terminated by order of the trial court on October 22, 1937. Under these circumstances the motion is proper and must be granted. (Christensen v. Couey, 136 Cal. App. 268 [28 Pac. (2d) 689].)

The appeal is dismissed.

Barnard, P. J., and Marks, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 P.2d 120, 24 Cal. App. 2d 370, 1938 Cal. App. LEXIS 911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bruce-v-tunstall-calctapp-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack