Freund v. Hamilton Const. Co.

California Court of Appeal

Freund v. Hamilton Const. Co.

289 P. 905, 107 Cal. App. 54, 1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 231

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJuly 1, 1930

DocketDocket No. 7487.

StatusPublished

This text of 289 P. 905 (Freund v. Hamilton Const. Co.) 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

Freund v. Hamilton Const. Co., 289 P. 905, 107 Cal. App. 54, 1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 231 (Cal. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

A motion by Martha Freund, a party to the above-entitled actions for an order dismissing the appeals of Hamilton Construction Company and John E. Hamilton and John E. Hamilton individually and doing business under the name and style of Hamilton Construction Company taken therein, upon the ground that said appeals have not been prosecuted with due diligence.

[1] It appears there has been delay in the filing of the transcript on appeal in this court, but the record fails to show that the proceedings for a transcript in the court below have been terminated and the motion must for that reason be denied. (Rule 6, sec. 1, Rules of the Supreme Court; Crocker v.Crocker, 76 Cal.App. 606 [245 P. 438]; Smith v. Jaccard,20 Cal.App. 280 [128 P. 1023, 1026].)

The motion is denied.

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

THE COURT.

A motion by Martha Freund, a party to the above-entitled actions for an order dismissing the appeals of Hamilton Construction Company and John E. Hamilton and John E. Hamilton individually and doing business under the name and style of Hamilton Construction Company taken therein, upon the ground that said appeals have not been prosecuted with due diligence.

[1] It appears there has been delay in the filing of the transcript on appeal in this court, but the record fails to show that the proceedings for a transcript in the court below have been terminated and the motion must for that reason be denied. (Rule 6, sec. 1, Rules of the Supreme Court; Crocker v.Crocker, 76 Cal.App. 606 [245 P. 438]; Smith v. Jaccard,20 Cal.App. 280 [128 P. 1023, 1026].)

The motion is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 P. 905, 107 Cal. App. 54, 1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/freund-v-hamilton-const-co-calctapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack