Mott v. Foster

45 Cal. 72
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1872·No. No. 3,597·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

By the Court:

The stipulation signed by the plaintiff in person goes for nothing. He had at the time an attorney of record who, as such, had the exclusive management and control of the case. (Board of Commissioners v. Younger, 29 Cal. 149.) The temporary absence of the attorney from the county at the [73] time the stipulation of plaintiff was obtained does not affect the rule in this respect or operate the displacement of the attorney of record. It results that the statement, being filed too late, must be disregarded, and, no error appearing on the judgment roll, the judgment and order denying new trial are affirmed. '

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

Mott v. Foster, 45 Cal. 72 (Cal. 1872).

45 Cal. 72 (Mott v. Foster) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Merkouris
297 P.2d 999 (California Supreme Court, 1956)
Wells Fargo & Co. v. City & County of San Francisco
152 P.2d 625 (California Supreme Court, 1944)
Jenkins v. State
87 S.W.2d 78 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1935)
Kellogg v. Winchell
273 F. 745 (District of Columbia, 1921)
Estate of Cowell v. Minkel
139 P. 84 (California Supreme Court, 1914)
Boca & Loyalton R.R. v. Superior Court of Lassen Cty.
88 P. 718 (California Supreme Court, 1907)
Coonan v. Loewenthal
61 P. 940 (California Supreme Court, 1900)
Toy v. Haskell
61 P. 89 (California Supreme Court, 1900)
Crescent Canal Co. v. Montgomery
56 P. 797 (California Supreme Court, 1899)
Wylie v. Sierra Gold Co.
52 P. 809 (California Supreme Court, 1898)