Cantlay v. Olds & Stoller Inter-Exchange

California Supreme Court

Cantlay v. Olds & Stoller Inter-Exchange

208 Cal. 644

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 9, 1930

DocketL. A. No. 11637

StatusPublished

This text of 208 Cal. 644 (Cantlay v. Olds & Stoller Inter-Exchange) 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

Cantlay v. Olds & Stoller Inter-Exchange, 208 Cal. 644 (Cal. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

PRESTON, J.

— Motion to dismiss appeal. The issue turns upon whether or not on the nineteenth day of Novem[645]*645ber, 1928, respondents served upon appellant a notice in writing of entry of judgment (sec. 953d, Code Civ. Proe.). This issue is presented to us by affidavits and counter-affidavits of the respective attorneys, aided by the affidavit of a clerk in the office of one of the attorneys and also by certain notations upon the register of the clerk of the court. No benefit would result from a detailed recital of the claims of the parties. We feel that it is only necessary to say that the issue made rests upon a very sharp conflict of evidence and is between reputable attorneys. To our mind it is clouded with grave doubt. This being true, our duty requires a denial of the motion, and it is so ordered.

Waste, C. J., Curtis, J., Seawell, J., Richards, J., Shenk, J., and Langdon, J., concurred.

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

PRESTON, J.

— Motion to dismiss appeal. The issue turns upon whether or not on the nineteenth day of Novem[645]*645ber, 1928, respondents served upon appellant a notice in writing of entry of judgment (sec. 953d, Code Civ. Proe.). This issue is presented to us by affidavits and counter-affidavits of the respective attorneys, aided by the affidavit of a clerk in the office of one of the attorneys and also by certain notations upon the register of the clerk of the court. No benefit would result from a detailed recital of the claims of the parties. We feel that it is only necessary to say that the issue made rests upon a very sharp conflict of evidence and is between reputable attorneys. To our mind it is clouded with grave doubt. This being true, our duty requires a denial of the motion, and it is so ordered.

Waste, C. J., Curtis, J., Seawell, J., Richards, J., Shenk, J., and Langdon, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 Cal. 644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cantlay-v-olds-stoller-inter-exchange-cal-1930.