Home/California Court of Appeal/Union Trust Co. v. Novotny

Union Trust Co. v. Novotny

13 P.2d 974, 125 Cal. App. 417
California Court of Appeal·Decided August 20, 1932·No. Docket No. 1035.·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

This is a motion by respondent to dismiss an appeal on the ground of failure to file a transcript.

[1] The motion is supported by the certificate of the county clerk and the facts therein stated are not contradicted. From said certificate it appears that notice of *Page 418 appeal was filed on October 13, 1931, but that no bill of exceptions has been settled as provided by section 650 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and no transcript has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of section 953a of said code. The statutory period within which such a record may be prepared and filed has expired. The motion must therefore be granted and the appeal dismissed (Catania v. Guccione, 60 Cal.App. 717 [214 P. 495]; People v. Berkeley Chiropractic College, 103 Cal.App. 139 [283 P. 981]; Rule V of the Rules for the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal). It is so ordered.

Marks, Acting P.J., and Morton, J., pro tem., concurred.

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

Union Trust Co. v. Novotny, 13 P.2d 974, 125 Cal. App. 417 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932).

13 P.2d 974 (Union Trust Co. v. Novotny) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rees v. Roberts
74 P.2d 296 (California Court of Appeal, 1937)
Di Giacomo v. Southern Pacific Co.
36 P.2d 427 (California Court of Appeal, 1934)
Hunter v. Paxton
28 P.2d 1075 (California Court of Appeal, 1934)
Schneider v. Title Guarantee Trust Co.
26 P.2d 650 (California Supreme Court, 1933)
Martin v. California Investment & Financial Co.
26 P.2d 17 (California Supreme Court, 1933)
Steffey v. Standard Stations, Inc.
20 P.2d 971 (California Court of Appeal, 1933)
Stewart v. Marple
15 P.2d 202 (California Court of Appeal, 1932)