From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Barbour v. Flick

Supreme Court of California
Jul 14, 1898
121 Cal. 425 (Cal. 1898)

Summary

In Barbour v. Flick, the motion was based upon a delay in filing brief, which delay had been caused by excusable mistake in counsel's understanding of a stipulation concerning the brief.

Summary of this case from Smith v. Title Ins. Trust Co.

Opinion

         Department Two

         MOTION to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County. J. W. Hughes, Judge.

         COUNSEL:

         Puterbaugh & Puterbaugh, for Defendant and Appellant.

         Patterson Sprigg, and McDonald & McDonald, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.


         OPINION

         THE COURT          There are cross-appeals in this case, by the plaintiff from a part of the judgment, and by the defendant from an order denying his motion for a new trial. By stipulation both appeals were to be heard on the same transcript, and defendants' attorneys prepared and filed it. They also filed their opening brief within thirty days after filing the record here, but plaintiff did not, within that time, file any brief in support of his cross-appeal, and defendant has moved under the rule to dismiss it. Plaintiff excuses his failure to comply with the rule by showing that he was under the mistaken belief that the stipulation as to the single record for both appeals also provided that he should print the opening brief on his appeal under the same cover with his answer to defendant's opening brief -- which he has done since notice of the motion to dismiss was served. Defendant's attorneys admit that this method of presenting the cross-appeal is convenient, and that they would very willingly have consented to it if they had been requested. They also admit that no delay in the hearing of the appeal has been or will be occasioned. Under the circumstances we think it would be too severe a penalty to enforce the rule by dismissing the appeal.

         Motion denied.


Summaries of

Barbour v. Flick

Supreme Court of California
Jul 14, 1898
121 Cal. 425 (Cal. 1898)

In Barbour v. Flick, the motion was based upon a delay in filing brief, which delay had been caused by excusable mistake in counsel's understanding of a stipulation concerning the brief.

Summary of this case from Smith v. Title Ins. Trust Co.
Case details for

Barbour v. Flick

Case Details

Full title:S. A. BARBOUR et al., Respondents, v. WARREN J. FLICK, Appellant. S. A…

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Jul 14, 1898

Citations

121 Cal. 425 (Cal. 1898)
53 P. 927

Citing Cases

Smith v. Title Ins. Trust Co.

Appellant contends that he should be relieved from the consequences of his delay in filing transcript, and…

Russell v. Agar

There is no question but that a man may make a valid agreement binding himself to dispose of his property by…