Fowler v. Peoples Finance & Thrift Co. of Bakersfield

California Court of Appeal

Fowler v. Peoples Finance & Thrift Co. of Bakersfield

29 P.2d 262, 136 Cal. App. 616

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedFebruary 6, 1934

DocketDocket No. 1319.

StatusPublished

This text of 29 P.2d 262 (Fowler v. Peoples Finance & Thrift Co. of Bakersfield) 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

Fowler v. Peoples Finance & Thrift Co. of Bakersfield, 29 P.2d 262, 136 Cal. App. 616 (Cal. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

JENNINGS, J.

This is a motion by respondent to dismiss an appeal for the reason that the printed transcript of the record has not been served and filed within the time required by the provisions of section 1, Rule I, of the rules of this court. From the affidavit of respondent’s counsel and from the certificate of the county clerk of Kern County made pursuant to Rule VI of the rules of this court, it appears that a bill of exceptions was settled by the trial judge on January 18, 1933, and that it was thereafter stipulated in writing between counsel for the respective parties that appellant might have until and including March 26, 1933, for the preparation, service and filing of the printed transcript. The records of this court show that no printed bill of exceptions has been filed in connection with the appeal. It also *617 appears from the above-mentioned- certificate that no request for the preparation of a transcript in accordance with the provisions of section 953a of the Code of Civil Procedure has been made and the records of this court show that no such transcript has been filed. It follows, therefore, that the motion for dismissal must be granted (Raisch Improvement Co. v. Arata, 193 Cal. 573 [226 Pac. 399]; Feinstein v. Blum, 128 Cal. App. 340 [16 Pac. (2d) 1003]).

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 an appeal for the reason that the printed transcript of the record has not been served and filed within the time required by the provisions of section 1, Rule I, of the rules of this court. From the affidavit of respondent’s counsel and from the certificate of the county clerk of Kern County made pursuant to Rule VI of the rules of this court, it appears that a bill of exceptions was settled by the trial judge on January 18, 1933, and that it was thereafter stipulated in writing between counsel for the respective parties that appellant might have until and including March 26, 1933, for the preparation, service and filing of the printed transcript. The records of this court show that no printed bill of exceptions has been filed in connection with the appeal. It also *617 appears from the above-mentioned- certificate that no request for the preparation of a transcript in accordance with the provisions of section 953a of the Code of Civil Procedure has been made and the records of this court show that no such transcript has been filed. It follows, therefore, that the motion for dismissal must be granted (Raisch Improvement Co. v. Arata, 193 Cal. 573 [226 Pac. 399]; Feinstein v. Blum, 128 Cal. App. 340 [16 Pac. (2d) 1003]).

The appeal is dismissed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 P.2d 262, 136 Cal. App. 616, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fowler-v-peoples-finance-thrift-co-of-bakersfield-calctapp-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack