Pollitz v. Wickersham

81 P. 1099, 147 Cal. 371, 1905 Cal. LEXIS 406
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 29, 1905
DocketS.F. No. 4265.
StatusPublished

This text of 81 P. 1099 (Pollitz v. Wickersham) 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
Pollitz v. Wickersham, 81 P. 1099, 147 Cal. 371, 1905 Cal. LEXIS 406 (Cal. 1905).

Opinion

SHAW, J.

This is a motion to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that the transcript was not filed within forty days after the settlement of the bill of exceptions on motion for a new trial, as required by the rules in force prior to February 18, 1905. Notice of motion to dismiss the appeal was filed in this court on March 23, 1905. By the rule existing prior to February 18th it was necessary to file a transcript within forty days after the settlement of the bill of exceptions. By *372 the amendment which took effect February 18th it is provided that when proceedings for a new trial are pending at the time the appeal is perfected the forty days’ time within which the transcript must be filed does not begin to run until the motion is decided, or the proceeding dismissed for want of prosecution. In view of this amendment of the rule, and the fact that the proceeding to dismiss the appeal was instituted after this rule had taken effect, and before the motion for new trial was disposed of, we think that the time for the filing of the transcript must be determined by the rule now in force, and that the motion to dismiss the appeal upon the ground stated should be denied, and it is so ordered.

Angellotti, J., Van Dyke, J., Lorigan, J., and Beatty, C. J., concurred.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
81 P. 1099, 147 Cal. 371, 1905 Cal. LEXIS 406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pollitz-v-wickersham-cal-1905.