From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

HAMPTON v. MUDD

Court of Appeal of California, Fourth District
Aug 9, 1939
34 Cal.App.2d 65 (Cal. Ct. App. 1939)

Opinion

Docket No. 2436.

August 9, 1939.

MOTION to dismiss appeals or affirm judgments of the Superior Court of Inyo County. William D. Dehy, Judge. Motion denied.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Jess G. Sutliff for Appellants.

A.J. Getz for Respondents.


The respondents have moved to dismiss these appeals or affirm the judgments on the grounds that the appeals were taken for delay only and that the questions raised by the opening brief are so unsubstantial as not to need further argument.

The respondents recovered judgments totaling about $20,000 for injuries sustained in an automobile collision. In the opening brief it is contended that the damages are excessive, that the evidence is not sufficient to justify the judgments, and that a certain instruction was prejudicially erroneous under the circumstances shown by the evidence. The main questions presented are whether certain employees of the appellants were, at the time, acting within the scope of their employment and whether the court erroneously instructed the jury in connection with that question.

[1] It not only clearly appears from the moving papers and the opening brief that a decision of this case will require an examination and consideration of the entire record, but it appears that at least two close questions are presented in connection with which the court is entitled to have the assistance of counsel for the respondents.

The motion is denied.

Griffin, J., and Haines, J., pro tem., concurred.

REPORTER'S NOTE. — On September 14, 1939, the appeals in the above-entitled causes were ordered dismissed pursuant to stipulation filed therein.


Summaries of

HAMPTON v. MUDD

Court of Appeal of California, Fourth District
Aug 9, 1939
34 Cal.App.2d 65 (Cal. Ct. App. 1939)
Case details for

HAMPTON v. MUDD

Case Details

Full title:C.S. HAMPTON, Respondent, v. ERICSSON MUDD (a Copartnership) et al.…

Court:Court of Appeal of California, Fourth District

Date published: Aug 9, 1939

Citations

34 Cal.App.2d 65 (Cal. Ct. App. 1939)
91 P.2d 914