Himmelmann v. Haskell

45 Cal. 269
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1873·No. No. 3,653·Published

Opinion

By the Court:

A party moving under Rule Fifteen that a cause be placed on the calendar, on the ground that “ the opposite party has failed to file his transcript or his brief, or points and authorities, as prescribed by Rule Two,” must show that the opposite party was in default at the time when the Clerk was required by Rule Fifteen to make up the calendar.

Motion denied.

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

Himmelmann v. Haskell, 45 Cal. 269 (Cal. 1873).

45 Cal. 269 (Himmelmann v. Haskell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.