Himmelmann v. Haskell
45 Cal. 269
This text of 45 Cal. 269 (Himmelmann v. Haskell) 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
Himmelmann v. Haskell, 45 Cal. 269 (Cal. 1873).
Opinion
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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
45 Cal. 269, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/himmelmann-v-haskell-cal-1873.