From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Taecker

Court of Appeal of California, Fourth District
Oct 17, 1932
127 Cal.App. 78 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932)

Opinion

Docket No. 1031.

October 17, 1932.

MOTION to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County. A.C. Finney, Judge. Motion denied.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Griffin and Boone and Edward T. Taylor for Appellant.

J.L. Taecker and Mary E. Taecker, in pro. per., for Respondents.


[1] A motion to dismiss this appeal was made upon the ground of the failure of appellant to file his opening brief within the time prescribed. The transcript was filed in this court on July 22, 1932. Notice of motion to dismiss the appeal was filed on September 17, 1932, the time for hearing being set for October 11, 1932. On September 19, 1932, copies of the opening brief were sent by appellant to respondents and on September 24, 1932, the original brief with a copy was sent to the county clerk with the request that the original be returned. On October 8, 1932, this original brief was returned to counsel by the county clerk and on October 10, 1932, the same was filed in this court. Upon the authority of Tyner v. Axt, 111 Cal.App. 187 [ 295 P. 97], Toth v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 113 Cal.App. 55 [ 297 P. 564], Snodgrass v. Hand, 125 Cal.App. 265 [ 13 P.2d 769], and Robinson v. El Centro Grain Co. et al., 125 Cal.App. 416 [ 13 P.2d 965], the motion to dismiss is denied.

Marks, J., and Jennings, J., concurred.


Summaries of

Smith v. Taecker

Court of Appeal of California, Fourth District
Oct 17, 1932
127 Cal.App. 78 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932)
Case details for

Smith v. Taecker

Case Details

Full title:J.H. SMITH, Appellant, v. J.L. TAECKER et al., Respondents

Court:Court of Appeal of California, Fourth District

Date published: Oct 17, 1932

Citations

127 Cal.App. 78 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932)
15 P.2d 193

Citing Cases

Silva v. Co-operative Dairymen's League

" An examination of the decided cases discloses that the text is supported by the decisions of the Supreme…

Lisle v. Ragle

This rule has been extended to include those cases wherein an appellant's opening brief is on file at the…