Landreth v. Ducommun

California Court of Appeal

Landreth v. Ducommun

48 P.2d 984, 9 Cal. App. 2d 136, 1935 Cal. App. LEXIS 1267

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedSeptember 11, 1935

DocketCiv. 10290

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 48 P.2d 984 (Landreth v. Ducommun) 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

Landreth v. Ducommun, 48 P.2d 984, 9 Cal. App. 2d 136, 1935 Cal. App. LEXIS 1267 (Cal. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

CRAIL, P. J.

Judgment was entered in the trial court in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant gave notice of appeal but did not prepare the recoz’d for use upon the appeal within the time prescribed by law. Thereafter and on August 1st, 1934, the court granted a motion of the plaintiff to terminate proceedings for preparation of the transcript on'appeal. Thereafter and within the time prescribed by law, upon the application of defendant for relief under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court made an order relieving the defendant from his default in failing to serve a draft of the proposed bill of exceptions within the time prescribed by law and setting aside the order of August 1, 1934. It is from this order that the plaintiff takes this appeal.

The order is not an appealable order. (Buis v. Lindauer Corp., 116 Cal. App. 558 [3 Pac. (2d) 18]; McWilliams v. Hudson, 98 Cal. App. 185 [276 Pac. 598, 277 Pac. 529].) The plaintiff may raise the question of the invalidity of the order when and if the defendant’s appeal from the judgment is prosecuted.

Motion to dismiss the appeal is granted.

Wood, J., and Fricke, J., pro tem., concurred.

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

CRAIL, P. J.

Judgment was entered in the trial court in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant gave notice of appeal but did not prepare the recoz’d for use upon the appeal within the time prescribed by law. Thereafter and on August 1st, 1934, the court granted a motion of the plaintiff to terminate proceedings for preparation of the transcript on'appeal. Thereafter and within the time prescribed by law, upon the application of defendant for relief under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court made an order relieving the defendant from his default in failing to serve a draft of the proposed bill of exceptions within the time prescribed by law and setting aside the order of August 1, 1934. It is from this order that the plaintiff takes this appeal.

The order is not an appealable order. (Buis v. Lindauer Corp., 116 Cal. App. 558 [3 Pac. (2d) 18]; McWilliams v. Hudson, 98 Cal. App. 185 [276 Pac. 598, 277 Pac. 529].) The plaintiff may raise the question of the invalidity of the order when and if the defendant’s appeal from the judgment is prosecuted.

Motion to dismiss the appeal is granted.

Wood, J., and Fricke, J., pro tem., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 P.2d 984, 9 Cal. App. 2d 136, 1935 Cal. App. LEXIS 1267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/landreth-v-ducommun-calctapp-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack