Poole v. Grand Circle, Women of Woodcraft

California Court of Appeal

Poole v. Grand Circle, Women of Woodcraft

119 P. 201, 17 Cal. App. 229, 1911 Cal. App. LEXIS 94

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedOctober 6, 1911

DocketCiv. No. 1009.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 119 P. 201 (Poole v. Grand Circle, Women of Woodcraft) 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

Poole v. Grand Circle, Women of Woodcraft, 119 P. 201, 17 Cal. App. 229, 1911 Cal. App. LEXIS 94 (Cal. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

Motion to dismiss appeal. The only reason suggested in support of said motion is the failure of appellant, before the filing of said motion, to cause to be transmitted to this court, a copy of the judgment-roll. It does appear that within seven days after service of notice of motion, and before the hearing thereof, appellant caused a transcript embracing such judgment-roll to be filed. All that is essential to a review of the action of the superior court is now before this court. Under rule XV of the supreme court, [144 Cal. xlvii, 78 Pac. x], respondent’s motion may be considered as an objection to the transcript, affecting appellant’s right to be heard, and the same was answered by filing the transcript embracing the judgment-roll. “The object of the above-mentioned rule is to enable the appellant to remedy any defect or omission of the transcript for the purpose of enabling him to present his appeal upon the merits, and is to be liberally construed for that purpose.” (Warren v. Hopkins, 110 Cal. 509, [42 Pac. 987].)

Motion to dismiss appeal denied.

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

THE COURT.

Motion to dismiss appeal. The only reason suggested in support of said motion is the failure of appellant, before the filing of said motion, to cause to be transmitted to this court, a copy of the judgment-roll. It does appear that within seven days after service of notice of motion, and before the hearing thereof, appellant caused a transcript embracing such judgment-roll to be filed. All that is essential to a review of the action of the superior court is now before this court. Under rule XV of the supreme court, [144 Cal. xlvii, 78 Pac. x], respondent’s motion may be considered as an objection to the transcript, affecting appellant’s right to be heard, and the same was answered by filing the transcript embracing the judgment-roll. “The object of the above-mentioned rule is to enable the appellant to remedy any defect or omission of the transcript for the purpose of enabling him to present his appeal upon the merits, and is to be liberally construed for that purpose.” (Warren v. Hopkins, 110 Cal. 509, [42 Pac. 987].)

Motion to dismiss appeal denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 P. 201, 17 Cal. App. 229, 1911 Cal. App. LEXIS 94, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/poole-v-grand-circle-women-of-woodcraft-calctapp-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack