Chapuis v. Pesante

California Court of Appeal

Chapuis v. Pesante

183 P. 247, 41 Cal. App. 688, 1919 Cal. App. LEXIS 516

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 21, 1919

DocketCiv. No. 2787.

StatusPublished

This text of 183 P. 247 (Chapuis v. Pesante) 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

Chapuis v. Pesante, 183 P. 247, 41 Cal. App. 688, 1919 Cal. App. LEXIS 516 (Cal. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

LANGDON, P. J.

This is an appeal from an order of the superior court for the county of Monterey denying plaintiff’s motion to amend her notice of appeal. Judgment was entered for the defendant on December 11, 1917. A notice of appeal was filed with the clerk on January 3, 1918. It appears that the plaintiff and appellant intended to perfect her appeal in accordance with the provisions of section 953a of the Code of Civil Procedure, but neglected to file, within the required time, the notice to the clerk requesting the transcript of the testimony, etc., as required by that section. Appellant contends that she should have been permitted to amend her notice of appeal só that it would embody this notice to the clerk requesting the transcript.

[1] We cannot see how the motion of the plaintiff could have been granted. The notice of appeal in the record conforms precisely to the requirements of section 941b of the Code of Civil Procedure, and required no amendment *689 whatsoever. It could not he amended to include something entirely disconnected from it. It has been decided in the case of Lang v. Lilley and Thurston Co., 161 Cal. 295, [119 Pac. 100], that the notice of appeal is not connected with sections 953a, 953b, or 953c of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that these sections are entirely independent of sections 941a, 941b, and 941c of the Code of Civil Procedure. (See, also, opinion of supreme court upon denying rehearing in Smith v. Jaccard, 20 Cal. App. 280, 287, [128 Pac. 1023, 1026]; Garner v. Meizel, 22 Cal. App. 256, 257, [133 Pac. 1165].)

As pointed out by the respondent, the affidavit filed by the plaintiff in support of her motion does not relate to reasons for amending the notice of appeal, but is merely an explanation of why a request to the clerk for the transcript was not filed in time.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

Haven, J., and Brittain, J., concurred.

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

LANGDON, P. J.

This is an appeal from an order of the superior court for the county of Monterey denying plaintiff’s motion to amend her notice of appeal. Judgment was entered for the defendant on December 11, 1917. A notice of appeal was filed with the clerk on January 3, 1918. It appears that the plaintiff and appellant intended to perfect her appeal in accordance with the provisions of section 953a of the Code of Civil Procedure, but neglected to file, within the required time, the notice to the clerk requesting the transcript of the testimony, etc., as required by that section. Appellant contends that she should have been permitted to amend her notice of appeal só that it would embody this notice to the clerk requesting the transcript.

[1] We cannot see how the motion of the plaintiff could have been granted. The notice of appeal in the record conforms precisely to the requirements of section 941b of the Code of Civil Procedure, and required no amendment *689 whatsoever. It could not he amended to include something entirely disconnected from it. It has been decided in the case of Lang v. Lilley and Thurston Co., 161 Cal. 295, [119 Pac. 100], that the notice of appeal is not connected with sections 953a, 953b, or 953c of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that these sections are entirely independent of sections 941a, 941b, and 941c of the Code of Civil Procedure. (See, also, opinion of supreme court upon denying rehearing in Smith v. Jaccard, 20 Cal. App. 280, 287, [128 Pac. 1023, 1026]; Garner v. Meizel, 22 Cal. App. 256, 257, [133 Pac. 1165].)

As pointed out by the respondent, the affidavit filed by the plaintiff in support of her motion does not relate to reasons for amending the notice of appeal, but is merely an explanation of why a request to the clerk for the transcript was not filed in time.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

Haven, J., and Brittain, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 P. 247, 41 Cal. App. 688, 1919 Cal. App. LEXIS 516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chapuis-v-pesante-calctapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack