Romine v. Cralle

California Supreme Court

Romine v. Cralle

27 P. 20, 3 Cal. Unrep. 417

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJune 30, 1891

DocketNos. 13,117; 13,228

StatusPublished

This text of 27 P. 20 (Romine v. Cralle) 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

Romine v. Cralle, 27 P. 20, 3 Cal. Unrep. 417 (Cal. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

BELCHER, C. C.

The judgment in this case was rendered by the superior court of Sonoma county on October 1, 1888. Subsequently three appeals were taken by the defendant Hirschler. The first appeal was dismissed, without prejudice, on the ground that the transcript was not filed in time. The second appeal was from the judgment alone, on a bill of exceptions. The third appeal was from the judgment, and an order denying a new trial, and, in so far as it was from the order, was dismissed on September 30, 1889: 80 Cal. 626, 22 Pac. 296. The records on the last two appeals from the judgment are the same, and they may be disposed of together. No brief has been filed on behalf of the appellant, and we are therefore not advised on what particular ground or grounds he relies for a reversal. We have, however, examined the records, and in our opinion no error prejudicial to the appellant is therein shown. We advise that the judgment be affirmed.

We concur: Foote, C.; Fitzgerald, C.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the judgment is affirmed.

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

BELCHER, C. C.

The judgment in this case was rendered by the superior court of Sonoma county on October 1, 1888. Subsequently three appeals were taken by the defendant Hirschler. The first appeal was dismissed, without prejudice, on the ground that the transcript was not filed in time. The second appeal was from the judgment alone, on a bill of exceptions. The third appeal was from the judgment, and an order denying a new trial, and, in so far as it was from the order, was dismissed on September 30, 1889: 80 Cal. 626, 22 Pac. 296. The records on the last two appeals from the judgment are the same, and they may be disposed of together. No brief has been filed on behalf of the appellant, and we are therefore not advised on what particular ground or grounds he relies for a reversal. We have, however, examined the records, and in our opinion no error prejudicial to the appellant is therein shown. We advise that the judgment be affirmed.

We concur: Foote, C.; Fitzgerald, C.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 P. 20, 3 Cal. Unrep. 417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/romine-v-cralle-cal-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack