Godsil v. San Joaquin County Building Trades Council

166 P. 1035, 34 Cal. App. 53, 1917 Cal. App. LEXIS 16
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedJune 6, 1917
DocketCiv. No. 1657.
StatusPublished

This text of 166 P. 1035 (Godsil v. San Joaquin County Building Trades Council) 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
Godsil v. San Joaquin County Building Trades Council, 166 P. 1035, 34 Cal. App. 53, 1917 Cal. App. LEXIS 16 (Cal. Ct. App. 1917).

Opinion

CHIPMAN, P. J.

Defendant, Plumbers’ Union No. 492, appeals from an order made by the superior court of San Joaquin County, denying appellant’s motion to recall and vacate the execution issued in said action.

It appears from the bill of exceptions that plaintiff commenced an action in said superior court on December 6, 1912, against a number of defendants, including appellant, and, after service of summons, no appearance having been entered by this appellant, on application of plaintiff’s attorney, made January 4, 1913, the clerk of said court entered the default of defendant on that day, and, on January 23, 1915, the clerk, on motion of plaintiff’s counsel, entered judgment in favor of plaintiff against the several defendants, including appellant. The execution was in the usual form and was issued on January 23, 1915. The motion to recall the execution was heard and denied on May 24, 1915, and, as stated in the notice of appeal, the order was “duly entered on the twenty-fifth day of May, 1915, in minute-book No. 3 of department 3 at page 711 of the records of said court.” Notice of appeal was filed August 6, 1915.

Respondent makes the point that the appeal was taken more than sixty days after said order was made and entered in the minutes of the court, and must be dismissed. (Citing Code Civ. Proc., sec. 939; Doyle v. Republic Life Ins. Co., 125 Cal. 15, [57 Pac. 667] ; Harper v. Hildreth, 99 Cal. 265, [33 Pac. 1103]; McCourtney v. Fortune, 42 Cal. 387.) Appellant makes no reply to the point nor do we think reply can be successfully made.

The appeal is dismissed.

Hart, J., and Burnett, J., concurred.

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

Related

McCourtney v. Fortune
42 Cal. 387 (California Supreme Court, 1871)
Harper v. Hildreth
33 P. 1103 (California Supreme Court, 1893)
Doyle v. Republic Life Insurance Co.
57 P. 667 (California Supreme Court, 1899)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
166 P. 1035, 34 Cal. App. 53, 1917 Cal. App. LEXIS 16, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/godsil-v-san-joaquin-county-building-trades-council-calctapp-1917.