Symons v. Bunnell

35 P. 770, 101 Cal. 223, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 1011
California Supreme Court·Decided January 31, 1894·No. No. 18178·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

De Haven, J.

The order of September 16, 1891, striking the appellant’s statement on motion for a new trial from the files is a special order made after judgment, and the appeal therefrom not having been taken within sixty days from its date must be dismissed. (Sutton v. Symons, 97 Cal. 475.) The order referred to being itself an appealable order {Calderwood v. Peyser, 42 Cal. 113; Clark v. Crane, 57 Cal. 633) no appeal lies [224]*224from the order refusing to vacate it, and the appeal from this latter order must also he dismissed.

In the absence of the statement the motion for a new trial was properly denied. (Sutton v. Symons, 100 Cal. 576.)

Order denying the motion for a new trial affirmed. The appeals from the order of September 16, 1891, striking the statement from the files, and from the order refusing to vacate the same are dismissed.

McFarland, X,, and Fitzgerald, X, concurred.

Hearing in Bank denied.

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

Symons v. Bunnell, 35 P. 770, 101 Cal. 223, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 1011 (Cal. 1894).

35 P. 770 (Symons v. Bunnell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Keating v. Keating
138 P. 118 (California Court of Appeal, 1913)
De Mitchell v. Croake
129 P. 946 (California Court of Appeal, 1912)
Freeman v. Brown
87 P. 204 (California Court of Appeal, 1906)
MacHado v. Kinney
67 P. 331 (California Supreme Court, 1902)
Beach v. Spokane Ranch & Water Co.
65 P. 106 (Montana Supreme Court, 1901)
State v. Griffin
40 P. 60 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1895)