Reposa v. Pearce

California Court of Appeal Jan 30, 1936 No. Civ. No. 9934Published

Before: Nourse

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court dismissed the appeal because the underlying judgment in the main case rendered the question regarding the amendment of the bill of exceptions moot.

Issues

Whether an order amending a bill of exceptions to include statements of indebtedness remains a justiciable controversy when the underlying judgment denies all damages.

Disposition. Dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Because of the judgment in the main case holding that plaintiff was not entitled to any damages, the question raised here has become moot.”

“For these reasons the appeal is dismissed.”

11 Cal.App.2d 520 (1936) JOHN REPOSA, Respondent,

CARLOS PEARCE, Appellant.

Civ. No. 9934. California Court of Appeals. First Appellate District, Division Two.

January 30, 1936. J. E. McCurdy and F. E. Hoffman for Appellant.

Larrouy & Macdonald for Respondent.

Nourse, P. J.

This is an appeal from an order amending a bill of exceptions in Reposa v. Pearce, No. 9829 (ante, p. 517 [54 PaCal.2d 475]). The amendment was made to include the original statements of indebtedness included in the plaintiff's claim for special damages. [1] Because of the judgment in the main case holding that plaintiff was not entitled to any damages, the question raised here has become moot.

For these reasons the appeal is dismissed.

Sturtevant, J., and Spence, J., concurred.

Reposa v. Pearce

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief