Wright v. Alldredge

California Court of Appeal

Wright v. Alldredge

279 P. 834, 100 Cal. App. 102, 1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 340

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJuly 23, 1929

DocketDocket No. 6746.

StatusPublished

This text of 279 P. 834 (Wright v. Alldredge) 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

Wright v. Alldredge, 279 P. 834, 100 Cal. App. 102, 1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 340 (Cal. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

[1] The defendants Alldredge appealed on April 25, 1929, from a judgment entered against them and in favor of the plaintiff in the county of Los Angeles on April 15, 1929, by filing merely a formal notice of appeal. No transcript has been filed, and the county clerk certifies that none has been ordered prepared, or any further steps taken toward perfecting said appeal. The time for filing the transcript having expired, the respondent on July 8, 1929, moved for dismissal of the proceedings in this court. Since the appellants have made no effort to show that they were within any exception, the motion must be granted. (White v.White, 112 Cal. 577 [44 P. 1026].)

The appeal is dismissed.

Thompson (Ira F.), J., concurred.

Works, P.J., being absent, did not participate in this opinion.

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

[1] The defendants Alldredge appealed on April 25, 1929, from a judgment entered against them and in favor of the plaintiff in the county of Los Angeles on April 15, 1929, by filing merely a formal notice of appeal. No transcript has been filed, and the county clerk certifies that none has been ordered prepared, or any further steps taken toward perfecting said appeal. The time for filing the transcript having expired, the respondent on July 8, 1929, moved for dismissal of the proceedings in this court. Since the appellants have made no effort to show that they were within any exception, the motion must be granted. (White v.White, 112 Cal. 577 [44 P. 1026].)

The appeal is dismissed.

Thompson (Ira F.), J., concurred.

Works, P.J., being absent, did not participate in this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 P. 834, 100 Cal. App. 102, 1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-alldredge-calctapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack