MARTIN v. HUNTZINGER (1936)

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

MARTIN v. HUNTZINGER et al.

Civ. 10844.

Decided: April 03, 1936

Harry Goldman, of Los Angeles, for appellant. Harvey W. Huntzinger, and W. Cloyd Snyder and John C. Stick, both of Los Angeles, for respondents.

This case comes before us on a motion of the respondent to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that the printed transcript was not and has not been served and filed within the time prescribed by law and the Rules of the Supreme and District Courts of Appeal, nor within the time provided by any written stipulation on file herein. The motion is made upon the certificate of the clerk of the trial court as provided by rule 6 of said rules, and upon the affidavit of the attorney for the respondent that the stipulation extending time to appellant within which to file said printed transcript expired on February 3, 1936, and that there exists no stipulation or order extending the time for filing such transcript beyond said date. Respondent is entitled to a dismissal of the appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

CRAIL, Presiding Justice.

We concur: WOOD, J.; McCOMB, Justice pro tem.

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Out of date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