Pitino-Capasso Fruit Co. v. Hillside Packing Co.

California Court of Appeal

Pitino-Capasso Fruit Co. v. Hillside Packing Co.

265 P. 859, 90 Cal. App. 191, 1928 Cal. App. LEXIS 68

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMarch 16, 1928

DocketDocket No. 3436.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 265 P. 859 (Pitino-Capasso Fruit Co. v. Hillside Packing Co.) 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

Pitino-Capasso Fruit Co. v. Hillside Packing Co., 265 P. 859, 90 Cal. App. 191, 1928 Cal. App. LEXIS 68 (Cal. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

BUCK (G. F.), J., pro tem.

This is an action by a vendee against his vendor to recover damages alleged to have been sustained for a breach of an alleged contract of sale. Defendant had judgment and plaintiff appeals from the judgment and also from the order denying plaintiff’s motion to *192 vacate the judgment under the provisions of section 663 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Respondent urges in his reply brief a preliminary objection to the hearing of these appeals upon the ground that this court has acquired no jurisdiction to consider them. To this contention appellant makes no reply either by brief or oral argument.

As regards the attempted direct appeal from the order made pursuant to section 663 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is clear that this court has no appellate jurisdiction. (Modoc Co-op. Assn. v. Porter, 11 Cal. App. 270, at p. 274 [104 Pac. 710], See, also, Kline v. Murray, 79 Mont. 530 [257 Pac. 465]; Lindgren v. Weaver, 80 Cal. App. 660 [252 Pac. 669].)

As regards the attempted appeal from the judgment, section 939 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended in 1915 (Stats. 1915, p. 205), provides that such an appeal must be taken within sixty days from the entry of the judgment. (Sec. 940, Code Civ. Proc.; Estate of Scott, 124 Cal. 671, 675 [57 Pac. 654]; Steward v. Spano, 82 Cal. App. 306 [255 Pac. 532]; Wilson v. Durkee, 20 Cal. App. 492 [129 Pac. 617].)

The clerk’s transcript shows that the judgment appealed from was entered in the judgment-book not later than October 6, 1925.

There is no record of any motion for a new trial herein. (Aspegren & Co. v. Sherwood, Swan & Co., 199 Cal. 532 [250 Pac. 400].)

Furthermore, the clerk’s transcript shows that the notice of appeal was not filed until December 31, 1925. Since the time for filing is mandatory, the appeal herein from the judgment must be also dismissed. (Smith v. Questa, 58 Cal. App. 1, at page 4 [207 Pac. 1036]; Steward v. Spano, supra.)

Appeal dismissed.

Hart, Acting P. J., and Plummer, J., concurred.

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