Robinson v. El Centro Grain Co.

California Court of Appeal

Robinson v. El Centro Grain Co.

13 P.2d 965, 125 Cal. App. 416, 1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 706

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedAugust 19, 1932

DocketDocket No. 960.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 13 P.2d 965 (Robinson v. El Centro Grain 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

Robinson v. El Centro Grain Co., 13 P.2d 965, 125 Cal. App. 416, 1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 706 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

MARKS, Acting P. J.

This is a motion to dismiss the appeal because the appellant’s opening brief was not filed in time. The record shows that appellant was given to and including July 20, 1932, in which to file his brief r that on the morning of July 21st counsel for appellant applied to this court for a further extension of six days, which was not granted because the notice of motion to dismiss had been filed earlier that morning. The motion to dismiss was noticed for Tuesday, August 9, 1932, at 10 o’clock A. M., at which time appellant filed affidavits setting forth a reasonable excuse for his delay. Appellant’s *417 opening brief was delivered to the clerk of this court for filing on July 25, 1932.

Upon the authority of the cases of Righetti v. Monroe, Lyon & Miller, 106 Cal. App. 346 [289 Pac. 650], Fishman v. Silva, 108 Cal. App. 121 [291 Pac. 430], Tyner v. Axt, 111 Cal. App. 187 [295 Pac. 97], Toth v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 113 Cal. App. 55 [297 Pac. 564], North v. Evans, 114 Cal. App. 714 [300 Pac. 893], and Snodgrass v. Hand, ante, p. 265 [13 Pac. (2d) 769], the motion to dismiss is denied.

Jennings, J., and Morton, J., pro tern., concurred.

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

MARKS, Acting P. J.

This is a motion to dismiss the appeal because the appellant’s opening brief was not filed in time. The record shows that appellant was given to and including July 20, 1932, in which to file his brief r that on the morning of July 21st counsel for appellant applied to this court for a further extension of six days, which was not granted because the notice of motion to dismiss had been filed earlier that morning. The motion to dismiss was noticed for Tuesday, August 9, 1932, at 10 o’clock A. M., at which time appellant filed affidavits setting forth a reasonable excuse for his delay. Appellant’s *417 opening brief was delivered to the clerk of this court for filing on July 25, 1932.

Upon the authority of the cases of Righetti v. Monroe, Lyon & Miller, 106 Cal. App. 346 [289 Pac. 650], Fishman v. Silva, 108 Cal. App. 121 [291 Pac. 430], Tyner v. Axt, 111 Cal. App. 187 [295 Pac. 97], Toth v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 113 Cal. App. 55 [297 Pac. 564], North v. Evans, 114 Cal. App. 714 [300 Pac. 893], and Snodgrass v. Hand, ante, p. 265 [13 Pac. (2d) 769], the motion to dismiss is denied.

Jennings, J., and Morton, J., pro tern., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 P.2d 965, 125 Cal. App. 416, 1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 706, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-el-centro-grain-co-calctapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack