From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Barnhart v. Fulkerth

Supreme Court of California
Dec 2, 1891
92 Cal. 155 (Cal. 1891)

Opinion

         Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County denying a new trial.

         COUNSEL

          P. J. Hazen, for Appellant.

          William E. Turner, and Charles J. Heggerty, for Respondents.


         JUDGES: In Bank. Paterson, J. Sharpstein, J., Harrison, J., McFarland, J., De Haven, J., and Garoutte, J., concurred.

         OPINION

          PATERSON, Judge

         Respondents have moved to dismiss the appeal herein on the following grounds: 1. The notice of motion for a new trial was not served or filed within the time allowed by law; 2. Said notice was not signed by the attorneys of record; 3. The statement was not served or filed within the time allowed by law.

         There is an apparent conflict of authority upon the subject, but we think the better rule is stated in Watson v. Sutro , 86 Cal. 500, where it is held that if the proceedings on appeal are regular, the appeal should not be dismissed upon grounds showing that the court below had no jurisdiction of the proceedings for a new trial; that such matters are proper for consideration on the hearing of the appeal. (See also Smith v. Westerfield , 88 Cal. 374.)

         The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.


Summaries of

Barnhart v. Fulkerth

Supreme Court of California
Dec 2, 1891
92 Cal. 155 (Cal. 1891)
Case details for

Barnhart v. Fulkerth

Case Details

Full title:H. BARNHART, Appellant, v. A. S. FULKERTH et al., Respondents

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Dec 2, 1891

Citations

92 Cal. 155 (Cal. 1891)
28 P. 221

Citing Cases

Hochheimer Co. v. Superior Court

It is revisory of the action of that court, and is to be exercised by affirming, correcting, modifying, or…

Estate of Young

A failure to serve some of the necessary parties does not require or authorize the trial court to refuse to…