Ventura County Title Co. v. Constance

California Supreme Court

Ventura County Title Co. v. Constance

62 P.2d 372, 7 Cal. 2d 684, 1936 Cal. LEXIS 694

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 19, 1936

DocketL. A. No. 15851

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 62 P.2d 372 (Ventura County Title Co. v. Constance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ventura County Title Co. v. Constance, 62 P.2d 372, 7 Cal. 2d 684, 1936 Cal. LEXIS 694 (Cal. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

Motion to dismiss.

' The respondent advances three grounds in support of its motion to dismiss the appeal herein. The first ground has to do with appellant’s failure to file his opening brief within time. Two days prior to the argument on the motion the appellant filed his brief and upon the hearing offered affidavits tending to establish that the delay in filing the same was attributable to financial distress and to illness of counsel. The showing so made is, in our opinion, suffi[685]*685cient to warrant relieving the appellant from Ms default, and he is so relieved.

The second and third grounds of the motion have to do with the authentication and form of the record on appeal. Both grounds lack merit. The record is properly authenticated. Included therein is a bill of exceptions duly settled by the trial judge and a certificate of the clerk of the court below certifying to the correctness of the copies of the papers on file in his office. We find nothing in the arrangement of' these several matters in the transcript that calls for a dismissal of the appeal.

The motion is denied and, in accordance with our order of October 5, 1936, the respondent is given thirty days within which to file its brief.

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

THE COURT.

Motion to dismiss.

' The respondent advances three grounds in support of its motion to dismiss the appeal herein. The first ground has to do with appellant’s failure to file his opening brief within time. Two days prior to the argument on the motion the appellant filed his brief and upon the hearing offered affidavits tending to establish that the delay in filing the same was attributable to financial distress and to illness of counsel. The showing so made is, in our opinion, suffi[685]*685cient to warrant relieving the appellant from Ms default, and he is so relieved.

The second and third grounds of the motion have to do with the authentication and form of the record on appeal. Both grounds lack merit. The record is properly authenticated. Included therein is a bill of exceptions duly settled by the trial judge and a certificate of the clerk of the court below certifying to the correctness of the copies of the papers on file in his office. We find nothing in the arrangement of' these several matters in the transcript that calls for a dismissal of the appeal.

The motion is denied and, in accordance with our order of October 5, 1936, the respondent is given thirty days within which to file its brief.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 P.2d 372, 7 Cal. 2d 684, 1936 Cal. LEXIS 694, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ventura-county-title-co-v-constance-cal-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack