Catania v. Guccione

California Court of Appeal

Catania v. Guccione

214 P. 495, 60 Cal. App. 717, 1923 Cal. App. LEXIS 55

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedFebruary 8, 1923

DocketCiv. No. 4451.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 214 P. 495 (Catania v. Guccione) 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

Catania v. Guccione, 214 P. 495, 60 Cal. App. 717, 1923 Cal. App. LEXIS 55 (Cal. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

STURTEVANT, J.

This is a motion to dismiss an appeal. The plaintiffs commenced an action to recover a judgment for goods sold. The trial court awarded them a judgment in the sum of $1,034.81. Thereafter the defendant made a motion for a new trial and the motion was *718 denied, and thereupon the defendant filed in the trial court, on June 22, 1922, a notice of appeal, but the appellant has not caused to be prepared, settled or filed a bill of exceptions, and there has been no dismissal by the trial court of any proceedings for a settlement of a hill of exceptions. The appellant has not filed in this court a transcript on appeal, nor has he obtained any stipulations or orders extending the time to file the same.

On the third day of January, 1923, the respondents served a notice that on the twenty-ninth day of January, 1923, at the hour of 2 P. M., they would move that the appeal be dismissed “on the grounds that the same has not been prosecuted to effect and no transcript or hill of exceptions has been settled, signed and filed as provided by law and the rules of the court.” Thereafter, on the twenty-fifth day of January, 1923, the respondents and appellant entered into a stipulation that the motion to dismiss might, at the time noticed for the making of the motion, be submitted for decision on the papers then on file, and waived oral argument or notice. Thereafter in due course the motion to dismiss was duly submitted.

[1] The moving papers seem to he regular in every respect. The laches of appellant are patent. No excuse therefor is shown. The motion is therefore granted and the appeal is dismissed.

Nourse, J., and Langdon, P. J., concurred.

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

STURTEVANT, J.

This is a motion to dismiss an appeal. The plaintiffs commenced an action to recover a judgment for goods sold. The trial court awarded them a judgment in the sum of $1,034.81. Thereafter the defendant made a motion for a new trial and the motion was *718 denied, and thereupon the defendant filed in the trial court, on June 22, 1922, a notice of appeal, but the appellant has not caused to be prepared, settled or filed a bill of exceptions, and there has been no dismissal by the trial court of any proceedings for a settlement of a hill of exceptions. The appellant has not filed in this court a transcript on appeal, nor has he obtained any stipulations or orders extending the time to file the same.

On the third day of January, 1923, the respondents served a notice that on the twenty-ninth day of January, 1923, at the hour of 2 P. M., they would move that the appeal be dismissed “on the grounds that the same has not been prosecuted to effect and no transcript or hill of exceptions has been settled, signed and filed as provided by law and the rules of the court.” Thereafter, on the twenty-fifth day of January, 1923, the respondents and appellant entered into a stipulation that the motion to dismiss might, at the time noticed for the making of the motion, be submitted for decision on the papers then on file, and waived oral argument or notice. Thereafter in due course the motion to dismiss was duly submitted.

[1] The moving papers seem to he regular in every respect. The laches of appellant are patent. No excuse therefor is shown. The motion is therefore granted and the appeal is dismissed.

Nourse, J., and Langdon, P. J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 P. 495, 60 Cal. App. 717, 1923 Cal. App. LEXIS 55, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/catania-v-guccione-calctapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack