Pacific Mutual Life Insurance v. Shepardson

18 P. 398, 76 Cal. 376, 1888 Cal. LEXIS 893
California Supreme Court·Decided May 31, 1888·No. No. 12435·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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

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

18 P. 398 (Pacific Mutual Life Insurance v. Shepardson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

East Side Canal & Irragation Co. v. Superior Court
158 P. 773 (California Court of Appeal, 1916)
Quintero v. Morales
19 P.R. 1120 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1913)