From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Murdock v. Clarke

Supreme Court of California
Jun 30, 1887
73 Cal. 25 (Cal. 1887)


         Department One

         Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Butte County granting a new trial.

         Motion to dismiss appeal.


         J. D. Goodwin, and D. W. Jenks, for Appellant.

          A. L. Hart, and S. Solon Holl, for Respondents.


         THE COURT

         Motion is made to dismiss this appeal on the ground, among others, that the notice of appeal was not served as required by law.          Appellant's attorneys resided, one at Quincy, Plumas County, the other at Alturas. Respondents' counsel resided at Sacramento. The case was pending in Butte County, and was tried at Oroville in that county. There was regular communication by mail between Oroville and Sacramento; also between both Quincy and Alturas and Sacramento.

         The notice of appeal was served by mail from Oroville.

         The objection seems to be sustained by the case of Reed v. Allison , 61 Cal. 461; also by Moore v. Besse , 35 Cal. 184, and Cunningham v. Warnekey , 61 Cal. 507.

         If we were to adopt the view of appellant, that it would be a sufficient answer to the objection to show that the notice of appeal was actually received by respondents' counsel in due time, that fact is not made to appear here. Manifestly, under such view, this should appear by express and positive evidence. It could not be shown by a presumption as to the regularity of the mails.

         The alleged stipulation to extend the time for filing transcript is denied and is not produced. If it were admitted, however, it would be difficult to see how it could constitute a waiver of the notice of appeal.

         The motion must be granted.

         Appeal dismissed.

Summaries of

Murdock v. Clarke

Supreme Court of California
Jun 30, 1887
73 Cal. 25 (Cal. 1887)
Case details for

Murdock v. Clarke

Case Details

Full title:ELEANOR MURDOCK, Administratrix of the Estate of Adam Murdock, Deceased…

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Jun 30, 1887


73 Cal. 25 (Cal. 1887)
14 P. 385

Citing Cases

Hall v. Bartlett

It is undoubtedly true that where a deed on its face contains two inconsistent descriptions either of which…

Witt Home Ranch, Inc. v. County of Sonoma

Once a subdivision map had been created, a lot's deed of sale could identify the lot by reference to the…