From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cook v. Cook

Supreme Court of California
Nov 15, 1929
208 Cal. 501 (Cal. 1929)

Opinion

Docket No. L.A. 11582.

November 15, 1929.

MOTION to dismiss appeal from judgment of Superior Court of Kern County and from orders denying motion to set aside an interlocutory decree of divorce and denying motion to dismiss action. Erwin W. Owen, Judge. Motion granted.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Geo. M. Cook for Appellant.

M.G. Brittan for Respondent.


Respondent moves to dismiss the appeal taken by appellant from an interlocutory decree of divorce and from two orders subsequently made, which are not identified by date, but which we assume from the transcript to be an order denying a motion to set aside the interlocutory decree and an order denying a motion to dismiss the action. The motion to dismiss the appeal is made on the ground that the appellant failed to file his notice of appeal and his notice to prepare transcript, and to perfect his appeal within the time required by law. [1] The notice of appeal was not filed until one hundred and eighty days after the entry of the interlocutory decree, nor was it filed within sixty days after the entry of the orders sought to be appealed from. It follows, therefore, that the appeal was not taken in time. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 939.)

[2] Appellant attempts to justify his delay by invoking the provisions of section 953d of the Code of Civil Procedure, and insists that, as written notice of the entry of the judgment was not given him, his appeal was taken within time. That section, however, does not help him, for it does not relate to notices of appeal which must be filed within sixty days after the entry of the judgment or order appealed from, but applies only to the notices required by the provisions of section 650 of the code relating to settlement of bills of exceptions, section 659 relating to motions for a new trial, and section 953a relating to preparation of transcript on appeal.

The motion to dismiss is granted.

Seawell, J., Richards, J., Curtis, J., Preston, J., Langdon, J., and Shenk, J., concurred.


Summaries of

Cook v. Cook

Supreme Court of California
Nov 15, 1929
208 Cal. 501 (Cal. 1929)
Case details for

Cook v. Cook

Case Details

Full title:EMMA COOK, Respondent, v. GEORGE COOK, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Nov 15, 1929

Citations

208 Cal. 501 (Cal. 1929)
282 P. 885

Citing Cases

Palomar Refining Co. v. Prentice

It has been frequently held that notice of the entry of a judgment or order is not required in order to start…

Kraft v. Briggs

There is no merit in this contention. ( Cook v. Cook, 208 Cal. 501 [282 P. 385]; Lancel v. Postlethwaite,…