Hofer v. Grundy

California Court of Appeal

Hofer v. Grundy

24 Cal. App. 686

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 3, 1914

DocketCiv. No. 1563

StatusPublished

This text of 24 Cal. App. 686 (Hofer v. Grundy) 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

Hofer v. Grundy, 24 Cal. App. 686 (Cal. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

CONREY, P. J.

Respondent moves to dismiss defendants’ appeal from the judgment herein upon the ground that appellants have wholly failed to serve and file a transcript within the time prescribed by rule II. The record shows that by stipulation a substituted bond on appeal was filed on March 19, 1914. Respondent’s notice of motion to dismiss the appeal was served and filed on March 21st, and was presented and submitted to the court on April 28th. Manifestly the motion was prematurely made and should be denied. It is so ordered.

'James, J., and Shaw, J., concurred.

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

CONREY, P. J.

Respondent moves to dismiss defendants’ appeal from the judgment herein upon the ground that appellants have wholly failed to serve and file a transcript within the time prescribed by rule II. The record shows that by stipulation a substituted bond on appeal was filed on March 19, 1914. Respondent’s notice of motion to dismiss the appeal was served and filed on March 21st, and was presented and submitted to the court on April 28th. Manifestly the motion was prematurely made and should be denied. It is so ordered.

'James, J., and Shaw, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 Cal. App. 686, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hofer-v-grundy-calctapp-1914.