Opinion

Riggs v. Guedemann

  • 94 Cal. App. 217
  • 270 P. 1001
  • 1928 Cal. App. LEXIS 667
Court
California Court of Appeal
Filed
Oct 1, 1928
Status
Published
Author
Conrey
On the bench
Conrey
Cited by
1 cases
Authority
More cited than 62.7%

The opinion

CONREY, P. J.

Respondent moves to dismiss the appeal of defendants from a judgment entered against them on the 23d of July, 1928. The motion is made on the ground that appellants have not filed in this court a transcript of the record, and that the time allowed therefor by law and the rules of court has expired.

Appellants filed their notice of appeal on July 31st, and a second notice of appeal on September 4th. There has been no motion for a new trial, and no proceedings for a bill of exceptions are pending. No application for reporter’s transcript under section 953a of the Code of Civil Procedure, was made until September 1st. The reporter’s transcript was filed with the clerk of the superior court on September 17th and presented to the judge for approval.

*218

The judge refused to certify the transcript, and there is not now pending any proceeding relating thereto.

The second notice of appeal was unauthorized.

{Brown

v.

Plummer,

70 Cal. 337 [ 11 Pac. 631 ];

Nathan

v.

Porter,

36 Cal. App. 356, 359 [ 172 Pac. 170 ].) The forty days allowed appellant for filing his transcript of record expired on September 9th. (See Rules I and V of this court.) Counsel for appellant contends that his time to file notice requesting transcript has been extended, and in fact has not commenced to run, for the reason that, as shown by the clerk’s certificate presented with this motion, notice of entry of the judgment has not been served upon appellants. This contention is without merit. It is true that section 953a of the Code of Civil Procedure, provides that the notice requesting transcript must be filed “within ten days after notice of entry of the judgment,” etc., but the decisions are uniform that the filing of a notice of appeal amounts to a waiver of notice of entry of judgment, and that (in the absence of prior service of notice of entry of judgment), the time allowed for filing notice requesting transcript begins at once upon the filing of the notice of appeal.

{Fiske

v.

Gosbey,

168 Cal. 334 [ 143 Pac. 611 ];

Brown

v.

Superior Court,

157 Cal. 141 [ 165 Pac. 429 ].)

The appeals are dismissed.

York, J., and Houser, J., concurred.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.