Masonic Mines Assn. v. Parker

California Supreme Court

Masonic Mines Assn. v. Parker

195 P. 666, 185 Cal. 26, 1921 Cal. LEXIS 517

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 3, 1921

DocketSac. No. 3220.

StatusPublished

This text of 195 P. 666 (Masonic Mines Assn. v. Parker) 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

Masonic Mines Assn. v. Parker, 195 P. 666, 185 Cal. 26, 1921 Cal. LEXIS 517 (Cal. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

Application for a writ of mandate to compel judge to settle bill of exceptions.

It appears from the letter of the trial judge set forth in the petition that he is willing and ready to settle the bill *27 if there be eliminated therefrom all matter appertaining to the notice of intention to move for a new trial and all matter appertaining to a motion for new trial. This, so far as appears, is all that appellant is entitled to, the new trial proceeding never having been prosecuted beyond the service and filing of a notice of intention and other papers, and never having been presented to the trial court, and having been denied by operation of law because not brought to determination within three months after notice of entry of judgment. [1] Under such circumstances the matter of the new trial proceeding cannot be reviewed on an appeal from the judgment, and bill of exceptions to be used on such appeal should not contain anything relative thereto.

The application for a writ of mandate is denied.

All the Justices concurred.

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

THE COURT.

Application for a writ of mandate to compel judge to settle bill of exceptions.

It appears from the letter of the trial judge set forth in the petition that he is willing and ready to settle the bill *27 if there be eliminated therefrom all matter appertaining to the notice of intention to move for a new trial and all matter appertaining to a motion for new trial. This, so far as appears, is all that appellant is entitled to, the new trial proceeding never having been prosecuted beyond the service and filing of a notice of intention and other papers, and never having been presented to the trial court, and having been denied by operation of law because not brought to determination within three months after notice of entry of judgment. [1] Under such circumstances the matter of the new trial proceeding cannot be reviewed on an appeal from the judgment, and bill of exceptions to be used on such appeal should not contain anything relative thereto.

The application for a writ of mandate is denied.

All the Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

195 P. 666, 185 Cal. 26, 1921 Cal. LEXIS 517, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/masonic-mines-assn-v-parker-cal-1921.