Knox v. Schrag

California Court of Appeal

Knox v. Schrag

122 P. 969, 18 Cal. App. 220, 1912 Cal. App. LEXIS 342

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedFebruary 13, 1912

DocketCiv. No. 912.

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 122 P. 969 (Knox v. Schrag) 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

Knox v. Schrag, 122 P. 969, 18 Cal. App. 220, 1912 Cal. App. LEXIS 342 (Cal. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

HALL, J.

This is an appeal from an order granting the motion of defendants for a change of the place of trial from Alameda county to Calaveras county.

Respondents object to the hearing of the appeal upon its merits, and ask this court to dismiss the appeal because, as it is claimed, no properly authenticated record has been filed in this court.

The transcript filed in this court is entitled “Bill of Exceptions,” and consists of various documents, including, among others, various affidavits, notice of motion for change of venue, demand for such change, amended complaint, demurrer to amended complaint, order of court granting motion, and notice of appeal. No bill of exceptions was ever settled by the judge as required by rule XXIX, [144 Cal. lii, 119 Pac. xiv], and no attempt was made to follow the procedure authorized by sections 953a, 953b and 953c, Code of Civil Procedure.

The only authentication of the record is that contained in a certificate of the clerk printed in the transcript, to the effect that the transcript “contains full and true copies of the bill of exceptions and notice of appeal from order, and all papers used in motion for change of venue, now on file in said court and cause.”

A' record so authenticated is wholly insufficient as a basis for this court to review the order appealed from. (Harrison v. Cousins, 16 Cal. App. 515, [117 Pac. 564]; Hibernia Sav. & Loan Soc. v. Doran, 161 Cal. 118, [118 Pac. 526]; Hershey v. Bristol, 162 Cal. 110, [121 Pac. 371].)

In Harrison v. Cousins, 16 Cal. App. 515, [117 Pac. 564], this court granted a motion to dismiss the appeal, but in Hibernia Sav. & Loan Soc. v. Doran, 161 Cal. 118, [118 Pac. 526], it is pointed out by the supreme court that the more appropriate order is an affirmance of the order appealed from.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

Lennon, P. J., and Kerrigan, J., concurred.

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

HALL, J.

This is an appeal from an order granting the motion of defendants for a change of the place of trial from Alameda county to Calaveras county.

Respondents object to the hearing of the appeal upon its merits, and ask this court to dismiss the appeal because, as it is claimed, no properly authenticated record has been filed in this court.

The transcript filed in this court is entitled “Bill of Exceptions,” and consists of various documents, including, among others, various affidavits, notice of motion for change of venue, demand for such change, amended complaint, demurrer to amended complaint, order of court granting motion, and notice of appeal. No bill of exceptions was ever settled by the judge as required by rule XXIX, [144 Cal. lii, 119 Pac. xiv], and no attempt was made to follow the procedure authorized by sections 953a, 953b and 953c, Code of Civil Procedure.

The only authentication of the record is that contained in a certificate of the clerk printed in the transcript, to the effect that the transcript “contains full and true copies of the bill of exceptions and notice of appeal from order, and all papers used in motion for change of venue, now on file in said court and cause.”

A' record so authenticated is wholly insufficient as a basis for this court to review the order appealed from. (Harrison v. Cousins, 16 Cal. App. 515, [117 Pac. 564]; Hibernia Sav. & Loan Soc. v. Doran, 161 Cal. 118, [118 Pac. 526]; Hershey v. Bristol, 162 Cal. 110, [121 Pac. 371].)

In Harrison v. Cousins, 16 Cal. App. 515, [117 Pac. 564], this court granted a motion to dismiss the appeal, but in Hibernia Sav. & Loan Soc. v. Doran, 161 Cal. 118, [118 Pac. 526], it is pointed out by the supreme court that the more appropriate order is an affirmance of the order appealed from.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

Lennon, P. J., and Kerrigan, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 P. 969, 18 Cal. App. 220, 1912 Cal. App. LEXIS 342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knox-v-schrag-calctapp-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack