Hellman v. Longley

California Supreme Court

Hellman v. Longley

154 Cal. 78

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 21, 1908

DocketL. A. No. 2041

StatusPublished

This text of 154 Cal. 78 (Hellman v. Longley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hellman v. Longley, 154 Cal. 78 (Cal. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

HENSHAW, J.

This is an appeal by the defendant Anaheim Landing, Mining, and Development Company from the judgment and from the order denying its motion for a new trial. The judgment was entered April 14, 1906. The motion for a new trial was denied and the order of denial entered October 18, 1906. Notice of appeal from the judgment and from the order denying a new trial was filed December 18,1906.- The appeal from the judgment, therefore, was taken more than sis months from the date of the entry of the judg[79]*79nient and the appeal from the order denying a new trial was taken sixty-one days after entry of the order.

Upon this condition of the record respondent moves that the appeals be dismissed. No answer is made by the appellant, and, indeed, we see none that could be made; therefore, the court being without jurisdiction to entertain these appeals, it is ordered that they be, and they are, hereby dismissed.

JDorigan, J., and Sloss, J., concurred.

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

HENSHAW, J.

This is an appeal by the defendant Anaheim Landing, Mining, and Development Company from the judgment and from the order denying its motion for a new trial. The judgment was entered April 14, 1906. The motion for a new trial was denied and the order of denial entered October 18, 1906. Notice of appeal from the judgment and from the order denying a new trial was filed December 18,1906.- The appeal from the judgment, therefore, was taken more than sis months from the date of the entry of the judg[79]*79nient and the appeal from the order denying a new trial was taken sixty-one days after entry of the order.

Upon this condition of the record respondent moves that the appeals be dismissed. No answer is made by the appellant, and, indeed, we see none that could be made; therefore, the court being without jurisdiction to entertain these appeals, it is ordered that they be, and they are, hereby dismissed.

JDorigan, J., and Sloss, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 Cal. 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hellman-v-longley-cal-1908.