Potter v. City of Compton

California Court of Appeal

Potter v. City of Compton

59 P.2d 540, 15 Cal. App. 2d 238

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJuly 7, 1936

DocketCiv. No. 10800

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 59 P.2d 540 (Potter v. City of Compton) 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

Potter v. City of Compton, 59 P.2d 540, 15 Cal. App. 2d 238 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

SHINN, J., pro tem.

Appellants challenge the jurisdiction of the trial court to grant relief from the default of respondent, resulting from his inadvertent failure to file his memorandum of costs within the statutory time after notice of entry of judgment. Upon authority of Soda v. Marriott, 130 Cal. App. 589 [20 Pac. (2d) 758], we hold that the court had jurisdiction to make the order appealed from, and it is therefore affirmed.

Houser, P. J., and Doran, J., concurred.

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

SHINN, J., pro tem.

Appellants challenge the jurisdiction of the trial court to grant relief from the default of respondent, resulting from his inadvertent failure to file his memorandum of costs within the statutory time after notice of entry of judgment. Upon authority of Soda v. Marriott, 130 Cal. App. 589 [20 Pac. (2d) 758], we hold that the court had jurisdiction to make the order appealed from, and it is therefore affirmed.

Houser, P. J., and Doran, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 P.2d 540, 15 Cal. App. 2d 238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/potter-v-city-of-compton-calctapp-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack