Chevassus v. Burr (1901) · DecisionDepot

Chevassus v. Burr

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Oct 31, 1901 No. S.F. No. 2925.Published

Before: Harrison

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court denied the motion to dismiss the appeal because the respondents failed to provide sufficient evidence that the proper parties were served with notice of the motion.

Issues

Whether the motion to dismiss the appeal should be granted for failure to file the transcript within the prescribed time.
Whether the service of the motion to dismiss was sufficient to bring the appellant estate before the court.

Disposition. denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The motion is denied, without prejudice to the right of the respondents to renew the same.”

“It is not shown that there has been any substitution in the superior court in the place of the deceased, Edouard Chevassus, to represent the appellant”

Synopsis

MOTION to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco dismissing an action. The notice of the motion was addressed to Louise R. Chevassus, executrix of the estate of Edouard Chevassus, de-

ceased, appellant, and she acknowledged, in writing, service of the motion, in pro. per., as such executrix. Further facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

HARRISON, J.

—Motion to dismiss the appeal for failure to file the transcript within the time prescribed by the rules of this court. The motion is presented upon a certificate of the county clerk and an affidavit of Morgiana Sammis, one of the respondents.

The suit is in ejectment, and a judgment of dismissal was entered in the superior court, June 22, 1897. An order denying a motion to vacate this order of dismissal was made October 1, 1897. The notice of appeal was filed November 29, 1897. The affidavit on behalf of the respondents states that this notice was of an appeal from the order denying plaintiff’s application to vacate said order of dismissal, but in the clerk’s certificate it is' stated that the notice of appeal was from the order of dismissal, and that the order of October 1st was an order denying the defendants’ motion to vacate the order of dismissal. As the certificate of the-clerk is the evidence upon which, by the rules of this court, the motion is to be heard,. the affidavit cannot be considered for the purpose of determining the character of the records kept by the clerk, or from which order the appeal was taken. It also appears from the certificate of the clerk that the action was commenced by Abel Guy, as executor of the last will and testament of Adolph Gronfier, deceased, and that Edouard Chevassus had been substituted in place of said Guy; and it appears from the affidavit of Sammis that Chevassus died after the appeal was taken, and that Louise C. Chevassus had been appointed by the superior court as executrix of his last will and testament. The certificate of the clerk fails to state, and it does not otherwise appear, who were the attorneys of the respective parties (see

Camenzind

Kampfen,

130 Cal. 596), or the attorney by whom the notice of appeal was given, the only statement in reference thereto being that the service of said notice was made

“

upon defendants’ attorney, Walter H. Levy, Esq., as appears by his acknowledgment of service on that date, indorsed upon said notice of appeal.” From this it would be inferred that the appeal was taken by the plaintiff from an order denying his own motion,

[436]

Chevassus v. Burr

AI Brief

Synopsis

HARRISON, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief