STRUCK v. WOLFE ET AL

Reset A A Font size: Print

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

STRUCK v. WOLFE ET AL.

Civ. 9631.

Decided: May 24, 1934

A. W. Brunton, of Los Angeles, for appellants. Ben F. Griffith and Malcolm Archbald, both of Los Angeles, for respondent.

The defendants having appealed from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in an action for damages in the superior court, the latter filed a motion to dismiss said appeal upon the ground that the record has not been prepared or filed as required by the Code of Civil Procedure, that there is no proceeding pending in the superior court for settlement of the record and that proceedings to procure such record have been dismissed. Defendants simultaneously moved that they be relieved from default in filing their transcript upon the ground that through the mistake, inadvertence, and excusable neglect of a former attorney the reporter had been prevented from completing the same, but that the transcripts were since ready for certification and filing.

Appellants' present counsel swore that he had no knowledge of the proceedings below until informed of respondent's motion to terminate proceedings for preparing the reporter's transcript; that the latter had been paid therefor; and that the same was ready for filing when certified. The reporter swore that the delay had been caused by the necessity of getting out other emergency transcripts and reporting in court, and that no delay had been caused by neglect of the defendants prior to January 16, 1934.

Cases are cited wherein appeals were dismissed in the absence of any legal excuse sufficient to meet the requirements of section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Proceedings admittedly are pending below and in this court involving issues of fact in that respect over which the superior court, plaintiff alleges, will, unless restrained, exercise its judicial discretion. The proceeding in prohibition depends upon principles of law yet to be determined. It has been settled that until final determination of a motion in the trial court to terminate proceedings for procuring the transcript a reviewing court will not dismiss an appeal. Engstrom v. Atkins, 102 Cal. App. 393, 283 P. 79.

The motion to dismiss is denied.

CRAIG, Justice.

We concur: STEPHENS, P. J.; SCOTT, Justice pro tem.

Copied to clipboard