Friedman v. Baldin

California Court of Appeal

Friedman v. Baldin

85 P.2d 522, 29 Cal. App. 2d 665, 1938 Cal. App. LEXIS 404

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedDecember 15, 1938

DocketCiv. No. 2409

StatusPublished

This text of 85 P.2d 522 (Friedman v. Baldin) 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

Friedman v. Baldin, 85 P.2d 522, 29 Cal. App. 2d 665, 1938 Cal. App. LEXIS 404 (Cal. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

BARNARD, P. J.

It appears from the certificate of the county clerk that the judgment appealed from was entered on July 1, 1936, and that notice of appeal therefrom was given on August 7, 1936. It also appears that an order denying a motion to vacate a default and to recall an execution was entered on July 29, 1936, and that a notice of appeal from said order was filed on July 31, 1936. It further appears, with respect to each of these appeals, that no notice to prepare a transcript on appeal has been given or filed; that no bill of exceptions has been filed; that no proceeding for the preparation of a record on appeal is pending in the trial court; and that the time to institute such a proceeding has expired. More than two years have elapsed since each notice of appeal was filed. The respondents filed two notices of a [666]*666motion to dismiss, one relating to each of these appeals. No appearance was made on behalf of the appellants when the motions to dismiss came on for hearing. The motions should, therefore, be granted. (Rees v. Roberts, 24 Cal. App. (2d) 69 [74 Pac. (2d) 296].)

The appeals are dismissed.

Marks, J., and Griffin, J., concurred.

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

BARNARD, P. J.

It appears from the certificate of the county clerk that the judgment appealed from was entered on July 1, 1936, and that notice of appeal therefrom was given on August 7, 1936. It also appears that an order denying a motion to vacate a default and to recall an execution was entered on July 29, 1936, and that a notice of appeal from said order was filed on July 31, 1936. It further appears, with respect to each of these appeals, that no notice to prepare a transcript on appeal has been given or filed; that no bill of exceptions has been filed; that no proceeding for the preparation of a record on appeal is pending in the trial court; and that the time to institute such a proceeding has expired. More than two years have elapsed since each notice of appeal was filed. The respondents filed two notices of a [666]*666motion to dismiss, one relating to each of these appeals. No appearance was made on behalf of the appellants when the motions to dismiss came on for hearing. The motions should, therefore, be granted. (Rees v. Roberts, 24 Cal. App. (2d) 69 [74 Pac. (2d) 296].)

The appeals are dismissed.

Marks, J., and Griffin, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 P.2d 522, 29 Cal. App. 2d 665, 1938 Cal. App. LEXIS 404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/friedman-v-baldin-calctapp-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack