Sonoma Magnesite Co. v. National Magnesite Products Corp.

208 P. 962, 189 Cal. 433, 1922 Cal. LEXIS 347
California Supreme Court·Decided August 15, 1922·No. S. F. No. 10261.·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

SHAW, C. J.

Defendant moves this court to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the judgment was entered by consent of the parties, that the sale was made by the consent of the parties, and upon the further ground that the agreement of January 17, 1922, between Chloupek, as at *434 torney for plaintiff, and the National Magnesite Products Corporation, estops plaintiff from appealing from the judgment herein.

Since notice of the motion. was filed, the appellant and the respondent have each filed additional papers and, among other things, the transcript on appeal has been filed, wherefrom it clearly appears that the plaintiff has no cause of appeal whatever, that it has appealed from the judgment upon the judgment-roll alone and that the judgment is in full accord with the findings. Wherefore no cause whatever appears whereby said appeal can be sustained. It is considered that the appeal should be dismissed without regard to the sufficiency of the causes set forth in the motion.

Let the dismissal be made without costs to either party.

Waste, J., Sloane, J., and Lennon, J., concurred.

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

Sonoma Magnesite Co. v. National Magnesite Products Corp., 208 P. 962, 189 Cal. 433, 1922 Cal. LEXIS 347 (Cal. 1922).

208 P. 962 (Sonoma Magnesite Co. v. National Magnesite Products Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McKenna v. McCardle
217 P.2d 433 (California Court of Appeal, 1950)
Estate of Wunderle
181 P.2d 874 (California Supreme Court, 1947)
Tarasco v. Moyers
180 P.2d 68 (California Court of Appeal, 1947)
Pacific States Savings & Loan Co. v. Mortimer
161 P.2d 684 (California Court of Appeal, 1945)
Williams v. Davis
154 P.2d 22 (California Court of Appeal, 1944)
Kelso v. Ulrich
153 P.2d 440 (California Court of Appeal, 1944)
Scarpel v. East Bay Street Railways, Ltd.
115 P.2d 862 (California Court of Appeal, 1940)
Wadsworth v. Santaquin City
28 P.2d 161 (Utah Supreme Court, 1933)
Stern & Goodman Investment Co. v. Danziger
274 P. 748 (California Supreme Court, 1929)