Grant v. De Lamori

12 P. 228, 71 Cal. 329, 1886 Cal. LEXIS 585
California Supreme Court·Decided November 29, 1886·No. No. 11712·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

The Court.

Motion to dismiss appeal. The forty days within which to file the transcript expired on the 17th of June, 1886. On the 19th of June, no transcript having been filed, and no order of record extending the time, the respondents moved to dismiss the appeal. Before the 17th of June, the appellant obtained the signatures of four of the justices to an order extending the time, but this order was not filed until after the notice of motion to dismiss was granted; it was filed, however, on June 21st. We are satisfied that the omission of the appellant to file the order of extension with the clerk was through inadvertence; and under such circumstances we do not think the ends of justice would be subserved by enforcing a strict rule and dismissing his appeal.

The motion is denied.

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

Grant v. De Lamori, 12 P. 228, 71 Cal. 329, 1886 Cal. LEXIS 585 (Cal. 1886).

12 P. 228 (Grant v. De Lamori) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gray v. Hecke
11 P.2d 26 (California Court of Appeal, 1932)
Desmond v. Otto Faus
23 P. 303 (California Supreme Court, 1890)