MORRIS v. PURITY SAUSAGE CO (1934)

District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California.

MORRIS v. PURITY SAUSAGE CO. et al.

Civ. 8910.

Decided: September 27, 1934

Ingemar E. Hoberg and Donald C. Young, both of San Francisco, for appellant. Cooley, Crowley & Supple, of San Francisco, for respondents.

Appellant by motion sought an order for the diminution of the record on appeal so as to include therein a certain affidavit alleged to have been considered in support of appellant's motion for a new trial.

It appears without dispute that the affidavit in question was served and filed more than ten days after the time permitted by section 659a of the Code of Civil Procedure for the filing of affidavits on motions for a new trial, and, so far as shown, no extension of time was granted. Under such circumstances, consideration of the affidavit by the trial court would have been improper (Crofford v. Crofford, 29 Cal. App. 662, 157 P. 560; Terry v. Lesem, 89 Cal. App. 682, 265 P. 523), and we cannot presume that such was the case (2 Cal. Jur. Appeal and Error, § 499, p. 852).

The motion is denied.

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network