Peter v. Fullen

California Court of Appeal

Peter v. Fullen

94 P.2d 1019, 35 Cal. App. 2d 115, 1939 Cal. App. LEXIS 779

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedOctober 11, 1939

DocketCiv. No. 2370

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 94 P.2d 1019 (Peter v. Fullen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Peter v. Fullen, 94 P.2d 1019, 35 Cal. App. 2d 115, 1939 Cal. App. LEXIS 779 (Cal. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

GRIFFIN, J. —

This is a motion on behalf of respondent and cross-complainant Alice M. Fullen, based on an amended notice of motion duly served upon appellant, to dismiss the appeal. The motion is predicated upon the grounds that the transcript has not been filed within the prescribed statutory time, and that the notice of appeal did not contain any request that a transcript be made up and prepared, and that no request was ever made to the clerk of the court in which the action was brought to make up and prepare the transcript, and that no proceeding for a bill of exceptions or for a transcript under section 953a of the Code of Civil Procedure is pending in the trial court, and that the time to institute the same has expired. A certificate of the clerk [116]*116of the Superior Court of Imperial County to this effect has been duly filed herein.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is granted and the appeal is dismissed (Wood v. Peterson Farms Co., 131 Cal. App. 312 [21 Pac. (2d) 468]). In accordance with the written stipulation of the parties duly filed, it is ordered that a remittitur issue forthwith.

Barnard, P. J., and Marks, J., concurred.

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

GRIFFIN, J. —

This is a motion on behalf of respondent and cross-complainant Alice M. Fullen, based on an amended notice of motion duly served upon appellant, to dismiss the appeal. The motion is predicated upon the grounds that the transcript has not been filed within the prescribed statutory time, and that the notice of appeal did not contain any request that a transcript be made up and prepared, and that no request was ever made to the clerk of the court in which the action was brought to make up and prepare the transcript, and that no proceeding for a bill of exceptions or for a transcript under section 953a of the Code of Civil Procedure is pending in the trial court, and that the time to institute the same has expired. A certificate of the clerk [116]*116of the Superior Court of Imperial County to this effect has been duly filed herein.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is granted and the appeal is dismissed (Wood v. Peterson Farms Co., 131 Cal. App. 312 [21 Pac. (2d) 468]). In accordance with the written stipulation of the parties duly filed, it is ordered that a remittitur issue forthwith.

Barnard, P. J., and Marks, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 P.2d 1019, 35 Cal. App. 2d 115, 1939 Cal. App. LEXIS 779, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peter-v-fullen-calctapp-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack