Tyner v. Axt

California Court of Appeal

Tyner v. Axt

295 P. 97, 111 Cal. App. 187, 1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 1235

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJanuary 16, 1931

DocketDocket No. 336.

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 295 P. 97 (Tyner v. Axt) 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

Tyner v. Axt, 295 P. 97, 111 Cal. App. 187, 1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 1235 (Cal. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

JENNINGS, J.

This is a motion to dismiss an appeal. The motion is based on the ground that the appellant did not file his brief within the time permitted by the rules of the court. The transcript was filed on October 6, 1930. The time for appellant to file his opening brief expired, therefore, on November 5, 1930. Notice of the presentation of this motion was served and filed December 10, 1930. The motion was noticed for presentation on January 13, 1931, and was presented on that date. On December 12, 1930, appellant’s brief was filed. Appellant’s attorney has presented and filed an affidavit from which it appears that during the period of his apparent delay he was diligently employed in the trial of various cases. Furthermore, the affidavit shows that the appeal has been taken and presented in good faith and that the delay has not appreciably postponed the hearing of the appeal on its merits. (Fishman v. Silva, 108 Cal. App. 121 [291 Pac. 430] ; Righetti v. Monroe, Lyon & Miller, Inc., 109 Cal. App. 333 [293 Pac. 114].)

The motion should be denied and it is so ordered.

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.

This is a motion to dismiss an appeal. The motion is based on the ground that the appellant did not file his brief within the time permitted by the rules of the court. The transcript was filed on October 6, 1930. The time for appellant to file his opening brief expired, therefore, on November 5, 1930. Notice of the presentation of this motion was served and filed December 10, 1930. The motion was noticed for presentation on January 13, 1931, and was presented on that date. On December 12, 1930, appellant’s brief was filed. Appellant’s attorney has presented and filed an affidavit from which it appears that during the period of his apparent delay he was diligently employed in the trial of various cases. Furthermore, the affidavit shows that the appeal has been taken and presented in good faith and that the delay has not appreciably postponed the hearing of the appeal on its merits. (Fishman v. Silva, 108 Cal. App. 121 [291 Pac. 430] ; Righetti v. Monroe, Lyon & Miller, Inc., 109 Cal. App. 333 [293 Pac. 114].)

The motion should be denied and it is so ordered.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 P. 97, 111 Cal. App. 187, 1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 1235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tyner-v-axt-calctapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack