Hunter v. Paxton

California Court of Appeal

Hunter v. Paxton

28 P.2d 1075, 136 Cal. App. 332, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 1036

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJanuary 22, 1934

DocketDocket No. 1288.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 28 P.2d 1075 (Hunter v. Paxton) 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

Hunter v. Paxton, 28 P.2d 1075, 136 Cal. App. 332, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 1036 (Cal. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

JENNINGS, J.

In support of their motion to dismiss the appeal herein for failure of the appellant to file a transcript of the record within the prescribed time, respondents have presented the certificate of the county clerk as required by Rule VI of the Rules for the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal. The facts stated in the certificate are uncontradicted and it therefrom appears that notice of appeal was filed on June 2, 1932; that no bill of exceptions has been filed as provided in section 650 of the Code of Civil Procedure; that no transcript prepáred in conformity with the provisions of section 953a of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed; that the time within which a record on appeal may be prepared and filed under either method has expired; that on July 14, 1933, the trial court, on motion of respondents, made an order terminating the proceedings for obtaining a transcript and dismissing appellant’s application for such transcript. The motion of re *333 spondents should therefore be granted (Union Trust Co. of San Diego v. Novotny, 125 Cal. App. 417 [13 Pac. (2d) 974]; Steffey v. Standard Stations, Inc., 131 Cal. App. 202 [20 Pac. (2d) 971]).

The appeal is dismissed.

Barnard, P. J., and Marks, J., concurred.

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

JENNINGS, J.

In support of their motion to dismiss the appeal herein for failure of the appellant to file a transcript of the record within the prescribed time, respondents have presented the certificate of the county clerk as required by Rule VI of the Rules for the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal. The facts stated in the certificate are uncontradicted and it therefrom appears that notice of appeal was filed on June 2, 1932; that no bill of exceptions has been filed as provided in section 650 of the Code of Civil Procedure; that no transcript prepáred in conformity with the provisions of section 953a of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed; that the time within which a record on appeal may be prepared and filed under either method has expired; that on July 14, 1933, the trial court, on motion of respondents, made an order terminating the proceedings for obtaining a transcript and dismissing appellant’s application for such transcript. The motion of re *333 spondents should therefore be granted (Union Trust Co. of San Diego v. Novotny, 125 Cal. App. 417 [13 Pac. (2d) 974]; Steffey v. Standard Stations, Inc., 131 Cal. App. 202 [20 Pac. (2d) 971]).

The appeal is dismissed.

Barnard, P. J., and Marks, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 P.2d 1075, 136 Cal. App. 332, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 1036, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunter-v-paxton-calctapp-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack