From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hellings v. Duval

Supreme Court of California
Dec 8, 1897
119 Cal. 199 (Cal. 1897)


         Department Two

         MOTION to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. James M. Troutt, Judge.


         T. M. Osmont, and Charles H. Hubbs, for Appellants.

         Henry S. Foote, and Sidney M. Van Wyck, Jr., for Respondents.

         JUDGES: Temple, J. McFarland, J., and Beatty, C. J., concurred.


          TEMPLE, Judge

         This is a motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment, on the ground that the time for filing the transcript on appeal has expired and no transcript has been filed, and because the pretended record which was filed contains no copy of the judgment-roll.

         The first ground is based upon the informal certificate to the transcript. The appellant has produced a proper certificate, which we think he should be allowed to add to his record. This disposes of the first point.

         The objection that some portions of the judgment-roll have been omitted is not a ground for the dismissal of an appeal. The remedy of the respondent in such case is to notify the appellant of his exceptions, at least five days before the hearing of the appeal, under rule XV of this court. The appellant will then have an opportunity to supply the papers, and, failing to do so, must take the risk of having his appeal dismissed.

         Appellant is allowed to amend the certificate to the transcript, and thereupon the motion to dismiss is denied.

Summaries of

Hellings v. Duval

Supreme Court of California
Dec 8, 1897
119 Cal. 199 (Cal. 1897)
Case details for

Hellings v. Duval

Case Details

Full title:W. B. HELLINGS et al., Appellants, v. HENRIETTA DUVAL et al., Respondents

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Dec 8, 1897


119 Cal. 199 (Cal. 1897)
51 P. 335

Citing Cases

Woodruff Company v. the Exchange Realty Company

Here the condition of the contract alleged to have been breached was that the defendant would "advance on…

United Canneries Company of California v. Seelye

[3] On the other hand, if we hold that the court erred in finding that the contract was rescinded, the facts…