Russell v. Chisholm

California Court of Appeal

Russell v. Chisholm

139 P. 657, 23 Cal. App. 727, 1914 Cal. App. LEXIS 300

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJanuary 28, 1914

DocketCiv. No. 1307.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 139 P. 657 (Russell v. Chisholm) 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

Russell v. Chisholm, 139 P. 657, 23 Cal. App. 727, 1914 Cal. App. LEXIS 300 (Cal. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

RICHARDS, J.

This is an appeal from an order granting the motions for a new trial of defendants Chisholm and Gray. The respondents stand at the threshold,of this appeal objecting to its consideration upon the merits on the ground that no properly authenticated transcript on appeal has been perfected or filed. The transcript oh appeal herein has attached to it the certificate of the clerk of the superior court from which the appeal is taken, “that the papers and orders therein contained are tine, full and correct copies of the originals on file and of record in this office, and of the whole thereof, together with the proof of service and filing thereof, and the indorsements thereon”; but there is no certificate of the judge of the court that the papers and records which the transcript contains were any or all of the papers or records which were used, upon the hearing of the motion for a new trial. That a transcript lacking such certificate is insufficient under either the old or new method of perfecting and presenting the record on appeal, is settled under the authority of Thompson v. American Fruit Co., 21 Cal. App. 338, [131 Pac. 878], and cases therein cited.

It follows that the respondent’s objection to the further consideration of this appeal must be held to be well taken.

The order is affirmed.

Lennon, P. J., and Kerrigan, J.„ concurred.

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

RICHARDS, J.

This is an appeal from an order granting the motions for a new trial of defendants Chisholm and Gray. The respondents stand at the threshold,of this appeal objecting to its consideration upon the merits on the ground that no properly authenticated transcript on appeal has been perfected or filed. The transcript oh appeal herein has attached to it the certificate of the clerk of the superior court from which the appeal is taken, “that the papers and orders therein contained are tine, full and correct copies of the originals on file and of record in this office, and of the whole thereof, together with the proof of service and filing thereof, and the indorsements thereon”; but there is no certificate of the judge of the court that the papers and records which the transcript contains were any or all of the papers or records which were used, upon the hearing of the motion for a new trial. That a transcript lacking such certificate is insufficient under either the old or new method of perfecting and presenting the record on appeal, is settled under the authority of Thompson v. American Fruit Co., 21 Cal. App. 338, [131 Pac. 878], and cases therein cited.

It follows that the respondent’s objection to the further consideration of this appeal must be held to be well taken.

The order is affirmed.

Lennon, P. J., and Kerrigan, J.„ concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 P. 657, 23 Cal. App. 727, 1914 Cal. App. LEXIS 300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russell-v-chisholm-calctapp-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack