Pacific Mutual Life Insurance v. Shepardson

California Supreme Court

Pacific Mutual Life Insurance v. Shepardson

18 P. 398, 76 Cal. 376, 1888 Cal. LEXIS 893

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedMay 31, 1888

DocketNo. 12435

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 18 P. 398 (Pacific Mutual Life Insurance v. Shepardson) 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

Pacific Mutual Life Insurance v. Shepardson, 18 P. 398, 76 Cal. 376, 1888 Cal. LEXIS 893 (Cal. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Searls, C. J.

This is a motion to dismiss an appeal,, and must be granted for the following reasons:—

1. The affidavit of service of the notice of appeal does not state positively its service, but only that the affiant alleges and believes he served it.

2. The affidavit fails to show that the affiant and the person served resided or had their offices in different places (Cunningham v. Warneky, 61 Cal. 507), or that there was any communication by mail between Colusa and San Francisco. (Reed v. Allison, 61 Cal. 461; Steele v. Supervisors of Merced County, 62 Cal. 6.)

The appeal is dismissed.

Sharpstein, J., Paterson, J., McKinstry, J., and Thornton, J., concurred.

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