Jenkins v. Frink
Before: Sawyer
Synopsis
Order giving Time to file Statement.—An order of Court allowing a party twenty days within which to file a statement on motion for a new trial must be construed as giving twenty days from the date 'of the order, and not twenty days beyond the time of giving notice, or twenty days beyond the time allowed by statute.
Piling Statement for Hew Trial.—If a statement on application for a new trial is not filed within the time required by law, the right to move for a new trial is waived, and if a motion to that effect is made, the statement should be stricken out.
Proceedings to obtain a Hew Trial.—There are three distinct steps recognized by the Practice Act, in a proceeding to obtain a new trial, for the taking of each of which, except the last, a particular period of time is allowed : Firstly—a notice of intention to move for a new trial; Secondly—Filing and serving statement or affidavits; Thirdly—The motion for a new trial. An order extending the time for taking either of these steps should express with precision the object tobe attained. Query ?—Should an order allowing time within which to file a motion for a new trial be construed as allowing time to file a statement?
By the Court, Sawyer, J. This case was tried by the Court without a jury, and the findings were filed on the 12th of May, 1864. On the same day notice of the filing of the findings was served on defendants’ attorney. On the 13th of May, on motion of defendants’ counsel, it was “ ordered by the Court that said defendants [338]have twenty days within which to file a motion for a new trial herein.” On the 16th of the same month the defendants Braley and Glallimore filed a notice of motion for a new trial, and served the same on plaintiff’s counsel. On the 3d of June following, the same defendants filed and served their statement on motion for new trial. On motion of plaintiff’s counsel this statement on motion for new trial was struck out, upon the ground that it was filed too late, and for that reason the motion for new trial was waived under section one hundred and ninety-five of the Practice Act. The appeal is from the order striking out the statement, and the only question is, Was the statement filed in time ? We think it was not. Conceding that the order gave the defendants twenty days within which to file a statement, there can he no doubt that the time commenced to run from the date of the order. It does not say twenty days from the date of giving notice of intention to move, or twenty days beyond the time allowed by statute, but simply that “said defendants have twenty daysiwithin which to file a motion for a new trial herein.” The obvious construction is, that defendants were to have twenty days in all from that time, and so the Judge below construed his own order. This construction was given to a similar order in Easterby v. Larco, 24 Cal. 179. The twenty days expired June 2d, and the statement was, therefore, not filed in time.
But the order does not in terms extend the time to file a statement, and it is at least doubtful whether it can be so construed. The statute recognizes three distinct steps in a proceeding to obtain a new trial. Firstly—A notice of intention to move for a new trial, which must be given within five days after the rendition of the verdict, when the case is tried by a jury, and within ten days after receiving written notice of the rendering of the decision of the Judge, or of the filing of the report of the Commissioner or referee, when tried by such officers, unless the time for giving notice is extended by the Court for a period not exceeding thirty days, when the parties do not consent to a longer period, as provided in section five hundred and thirty. Secondly—Filing and serving [339]
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)