Feinstein v. Blum

California Court of Appeal

Feinstein v. Blum

16 P.2d 1003, 128 Cal. App. 340, 1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 203

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedDecember 22, 1932

DocketDocket No. 691.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 16 P.2d 1003 (Feinstein v. Blum) 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

Feinstein v. Blum, 16 P.2d 1003, 128 Cal. App. 340, 1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 203 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

JENNINGS, J.

This is a motion by respondent to dismiss the appeal herein on the ground that the printed transcript of the record has not been served and filed within the time provided by section 1, Rule I, of the Rules for this court. By the affidavit of counsel for respondent, and by the certificate of the county clerk made pursuant to the provisions of Rule VI of the Rules for this court, it is made to *341 appear that a bill of exceptions was settled by the trial judge on July 16, 1932, and notice of settling said bill of exceptions was thereupon given by mail. This motion was orginally noticed for hearing in this court on October 11, 1932. On October 3, 1932, counsel for appellant made an affidavit in support of his application for an extension of time within which to file the printed transcript of the record. By this affidavit it is made to appear that the bill of exceptions was settled on July 26, 1932. By order of the Presiding Justice of this court made on October 4, 1932, appellant was allowed an extension of time, until November 3, 1932, in which to serve and file the printed bill of exceptions. On October 11, 1932, hearing of this motion to dismiss the appeal was continued to November 4, 1932. On the last-mentioned date the motion came on regularly for hearing, at which time counsel for respondent appeared and argued that the motion be granted. No appearance was made by appellant. Our records show that at this time no printed bill of exceptions has been filed with this court. It follows, therefore, that respondent’s motion to dismiss the appeal should be granted (Raisch Improvement Co. v. Arata, 193 Cal. 573 [226 Pac. 399]).

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.

This is a motion by respondent to dismiss the appeal herein on the ground that the printed transcript of the record has not been served and filed within the time provided by section 1, Rule I, of the Rules for this court. By the affidavit of counsel for respondent, and by the certificate of the county clerk made pursuant to the provisions of Rule VI of the Rules for this court, it is made to *341 appear that a bill of exceptions was settled by the trial judge on July 16, 1932, and notice of settling said bill of exceptions was thereupon given by mail. This motion was orginally noticed for hearing in this court on October 11, 1932. On October 3, 1932, counsel for appellant made an affidavit in support of his application for an extension of time within which to file the printed transcript of the record. By this affidavit it is made to appear that the bill of exceptions was settled on July 26, 1932. By order of the Presiding Justice of this court made on October 4, 1932, appellant was allowed an extension of time, until November 3, 1932, in which to serve and file the printed bill of exceptions. On October 11, 1932, hearing of this motion to dismiss the appeal was continued to November 4, 1932. On the last-mentioned date the motion came on regularly for hearing, at which time counsel for respondent appeared and argued that the motion be granted. No appearance was made by appellant. Our records show that at this time no printed bill of exceptions has been filed with this court. It follows, therefore, that respondent’s motion to dismiss the appeal should be granted (Raisch Improvement Co. v. Arata, 193 Cal. 573 [226 Pac. 399]).

The appeal is dismissed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 P.2d 1003, 128 Cal. App. 340, 1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feinstein-v-blum-calctapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack