From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Judge v. Ohm

Supreme Court of California
May 19, 1891
89 Cal. 134 (Cal. 1891)

Opinion

         Motion to dismiss an appeal.

         COUNSEL

          Joseph M. Kinley, for Appellant.

          W. C. Belcher, for Respondent.


         JUDGES: In Bank.

         OPINION

         THE COURT

         Motion to dismiss appeal.

         It appears by the certificate of the county clerk of the city and county of San Francisco that appellant filed her notice of appeal upon the fifth day of January, 1891, and her undertaking on appeal upon the tenth day of the same month; that the bill of exceptions was settled upon the second day of January, 1891, and was filed the day following.

         A motion to dismiss the appeal was made April 15, 1891, upon the ground that no transcript had been filed within the time prescribed by the rules of this court.

         Although the time to file the transcript in the cause had long since gone by at the hearing of this motion, still, no transcript was on file at that time and no cause shown for such failure to file the same.

         Let the appeal be dismissed.


Summaries of

Judge v. Ohm

Supreme Court of California
May 19, 1891
89 Cal. 134 (Cal. 1891)
Case details for

Judge v. Ohm

Case Details

Full title:SUSAN E. JUDGE, Appellant, v. ANNA A. OHM, Administratrix, etc., Respondent

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: May 19, 1891

Citations

89 Cal. 134 (Cal. 1891)
26 P. 649

Citing Cases

Scott v. Landis

[2] Where no transcript is filed within the time required by law after the perfecting of an appeal and there…

Perrine v. Paulos

[3] An innkeeper who refuses accommodations without just cause is not only liable in damages, but is guilty…