Morris Plan Co. v. Heinz

California Court of Appeal Dec 7, 1934 No. Civ. No. 1556Published

Before: Jennings

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court granted the respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal because the appellant failed to initiate proceedings for a bill of exceptions or reporter's transcript within the required time.

Issues

Whether an appeal should be dismissed when the appellant fails to timely institute proceedings for a bill of exceptions or reporter's transcript.

Disposition. Dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Respondent’s motion for dismissal of the appeal should therefore be granted.”

“The appeal is dismissed.”

JENNINGS, J. This is a motion to dismiss an appeal. The certificate of the county clerk which has been filed in support of the motion shows that the judgment was rendered on December 28, 1933; that notice of appeal therefrom was filed by appellant on March 22,1934; that no proceedings for the settlement of a bill of exceptions or for the preparation of a reporter’s transcript to be used on the appeal are pending in the trial court and that the time for instituting such proceedings has expired. No showing in opposition to the motion has been made by appellant. Respondent’s motion for dismissal of the appeal should therefore be granted. (Steffey v. Standard Stations, Inc., 131 Cal. App. 202 [20 Pac. (2d) 971].)

The appeal is dismissed.

Barnard, P. J., and Marks, J., concurred.

Morris Plan Co. v. Heinz

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief