Rolling v. Hockenberry

California Court of Appeal

Rolling v. Hockenberry

51 P.2d 893, 10 Cal. App. 2d 309, 1935 Cal. App. LEXIS 1400

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedNovember 21, 1935

DocketCiv. No. 1625

StatusPublished

This text of 51 P.2d 893 (Rolling v. Hockenberry) 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

Rolling v. Hockenberry, 51 P.2d 893, 10 Cal. App. 2d 309, 1935 Cal. App. LEXIS 1400 (Cal. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

JENNINGS, J.

In support of his motion to dismiss this appeal for appellant’s failure to have filed a transcript of the record within the time prescribed by law, respondent has filed the certificate of the county clerk in accordance with the [310]*310provisions of rule VI of the Rules for the Supreme Court and • District Courts of Appeal. The facts stated in the certificate are uncontradicted. It appears therefrom that notice of appeal was filed on December 24, 1934; that on the same date notice was filed with the county clerk to prepare a transcript of the record to be used on appeal; that no transcript has been filed pursuant to section 953a of the Code of Civil Procedure; that on July 29, 1935, the trial court entered its order granting respondent’s motion to dismiss the proceedings for preparation of a transcript on appeal. Other than the above-mentioned certificate and this motion for dismissal nothing has been filed with this court. Respondent’s motion is therefore in order and should be granted. (Capley v. Clark, 112 Cal. App. 427 [296 Pac. 898]; Ciani v. Dubuque F. & M. Ins. Co., 1 Cal. App. (2d) 379 [36 Pac. (2d) 658]; Bales v. Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co., 3 Cal. App. (2d) 43 [38 Pac. (2d) 799].)

The appeal is dismissed.

Barnard, P. J., and Marks, J., concurred.

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

JENNINGS, J.

In support of his motion to dismiss this appeal for appellant’s failure to have filed a transcript of the record within the time prescribed by law, respondent has filed the certificate of the county clerk in accordance with the [310]*310provisions of rule VI of the Rules for the Supreme Court and • District Courts of Appeal. The facts stated in the certificate are uncontradicted. It appears therefrom that notice of appeal was filed on December 24, 1934; that on the same date notice was filed with the county clerk to prepare a transcript of the record to be used on appeal; that no transcript has been filed pursuant to section 953a of the Code of Civil Procedure; that on July 29, 1935, the trial court entered its order granting respondent’s motion to dismiss the proceedings for preparation of a transcript on appeal. Other than the above-mentioned certificate and this motion for dismissal nothing has been filed with this court. Respondent’s motion is therefore in order and should be granted. (Capley v. Clark, 112 Cal. App. 427 [296 Pac. 898]; Ciani v. Dubuque F. & M. Ins. Co., 1 Cal. App. (2d) 379 [36 Pac. (2d) 658]; Bales v. Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co., 3 Cal. App. (2d) 43 [38 Pac. (2d) 799].)

The appeal is dismissed.

Barnard, P. J., and Marks, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 P.2d 893, 10 Cal. App. 2d 309, 1935 Cal. App. LEXIS 1400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rolling-v-hockenberry-calctapp-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack