Wright v. Wright

California Court of Appeal

Wright v. Wright

110 P.2d 88, 43 Cal. App. 2d 46, 1941 Cal. App. LEXIS 609

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedFebruary 14, 1941

DocketCiv. No. 2617

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 110 P.2d 88 (Wright v. Wright) 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. Wright, 110 P.2d 88, 43 Cal. App. 2d 46, 1941 Cal. App. LEXIS 609 (Cal. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

MARKS, J.

This is a motion to dismiss the appeal from a judgment, and from an order denying the motion for new trial. Such an order is not appealable. (Code Civ. Proc., see. 963.)

There is nothing on file here other than the moving papers and the certificate of the county clerk, from which it appears that the motion for new trial was denied on April 27, 1940; that notice of its denial was filed on April 29, 1940; that notice of appeal and notice to prepare the transcript were filed on May 8, 1940; that on September 17, 1940, the trial court terminated the proceedings for preparation of transcript; that there are no proceedings pending for the settlement of a bill of exceptions, or transcript on appeal.

[47]*47Under such circumstances the motion must be granted. (Bales v. Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co., 3 Cal. App. (2d) 43 [38 Pac. (2d) 799] ; Carrasco v. Marcus, 18 Cal. App. (2d) 96 [62 Pac. (2d) 1405]; Olinger v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, 18 Cal. App. (2d) 104 [62 Pac. (2d) 1406].)

The appeal is dismissed.

Barnard, P. J., and Griffin, J., concurred.

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

MARKS, J.

This is a motion to dismiss the appeal from a judgment, and from an order denying the motion for new trial. Such an order is not appealable. (Code Civ. Proc., see. 963.)

There is nothing on file here other than the moving papers and the certificate of the county clerk, from which it appears that the motion for new trial was denied on April 27, 1940; that notice of its denial was filed on April 29, 1940; that notice of appeal and notice to prepare the transcript were filed on May 8, 1940; that on September 17, 1940, the trial court terminated the proceedings for preparation of transcript; that there are no proceedings pending for the settlement of a bill of exceptions, or transcript on appeal.

[47]*47Under such circumstances the motion must be granted. (Bales v. Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co., 3 Cal. App. (2d) 43 [38 Pac. (2d) 799] ; Carrasco v. Marcus, 18 Cal. App. (2d) 96 [62 Pac. (2d) 1405]; Olinger v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, 18 Cal. App. (2d) 104 [62 Pac. (2d) 1406].)

The appeal is dismissed.

Barnard, P. J., and Griffin, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 P.2d 88, 43 Cal. App. 2d 46, 1941 Cal. App. LEXIS 609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-wright-calctapp-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack