Patrick v. Morse

2 P. 49, 64 Cal. 462, 1884 Cal. LEXIS 396
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 22, 1884
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 2 P. 49 (Patrick v. Morse) 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
Patrick v. Morse, 2 P. 49, 64 Cal. 462, 1884 Cal. LEXIS 396 (Cal. 1884).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

—This is an appeal by defendant from an order granting a new trial.

Judgment was ordered in favor of defendant August 19, 1879. The cause was tried with a jury, and no notice of the decision of the court was given to the plaintiff prior to service by him of notice of intention to move for a new trial on the 7th day of November, 1879. August 29, 1879, plaintiff had, however, served notice of a motion to vacate and set aside the judgment, and the point made by appellant is that the plaintiff’s right to move for a new trial expired in ten days after August 29, 1879, when, as appears by the record, he had actual knowledge of the decision ot the court and the entry of judgment thereupon.

[463]*463Section 1054 of the Code of Civil Procedure read:—

“When an act to be done, as provided in this Code, relates to the pleadings in the action, or the undertakings to be filed, or the justification of sureties, or the preparation of statements or of bills of exceptions, or of amendments thereto, or to the service of notices, other than of appeal, the time allowed by this Code may be extended, upon good cause shown, by the court in which the action is pending or the judge thereof; .... but such extension shall not exceed thirty days, without the consent of the adverse party.” There is nothing in the transcript to show that any objection was made below to the hearing of the motion for new trial on the ground that the motion came too late, and we must presume that the time was extended by consent of the parties.

Order affirmed.

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

Related

James Gordon Coons, III v. State of Tennessee
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 1999
Campos v. Great American Insurance
38 P.R. 840 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1928)
Campos v. Great American Ins.
38 P.R. Dec. 934 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1928)
Mulcahy v. Young
208 P. 321 (California Court of Appeal, 1922)
Lantz v. Cole
156 P. 45 (California Supreme Court, 1916)
Sheppard v. Sheppard
115 P. 751 (California Court of Appeal, 1911)
Reclamation District No. 556 v. Thisby
63 P. 918 (California Supreme Court, 1901)
Churchill v. Flournoy
59 P. 791 (California Supreme Court, 1899)
Horton v. Jack
46 P. 920 (California Supreme Court, 1896)
Simpson v. Budd
27 P. 758 (California Supreme Court, 1891)
Brichman v. Ross
8 P. 316 (California Supreme Court, 1885)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 P. 49, 64 Cal. 462, 1884 Cal. LEXIS 396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patrick-v-morse-cal-1884.