From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Grant v. Lamori

Supreme Court of California
Nov 29, 1886
71 Cal. 329 (Cal. 1886)

Opinion

         Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, and from an order refusing a new trial.

         Motion to dismiss appeal.

         COUNSEL:

         H. Allen, for Appellants.

          Howard & Scott, for Respondent.


         JUDGES: In Bank.

         OPINION

         THE COURT

         Motion to dismiss appeal. The forty days within which to file the transcript expired on the 17th of June, 1886. On the 19th of June, no transcript having been filed, and no order of record extending the time, the respondents moved to dismiss the appeal. Before the 17th of June, the appellant obtained the signatures of four of the justices to an order extending the time, but this order was not filed until after the notice of motion to dismiss was granted; it was filed, however, on June 21st. We are satisfied that the omission of the appellant to file the order of extension with the clerk was through inadvertence; and under such circumstances we do not think the ends of justice would be subserved by enforcing a strict rule and dismissing his appeal.

         The motion is denied.


Summaries of

Grant v. Lamori

Supreme Court of California
Nov 29, 1886
71 Cal. 329 (Cal. 1886)
Case details for

Grant v. Lamori

Case Details

Full title:JOHN GRANT, Respondent, v. FRANCISCA URQUIDEZ DE LAMORI, Administratrix…

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Nov 29, 1886

Citations

71 Cal. 329 (Cal. 1886)
12 P. 228

Citing Cases

Larkin v. Larkin

The judgment was in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed from it and the order denying her…

Ibbetson v. Peairson

No lien is reserved in the lease upon the crops, and the landlord has no lien for rent reserved. ( Hitchcock…