STEINER v. DAVIS (1937)

District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, California.

STEINER v. DAVIS.

Civ. 2102.

Decided: June 10, 1937

C. Arden Gingery and E. W. Miller, both of Los Angeles, for appellant. Hert & Withington, of San Bernardino, for respondent.

Respondent's notice of motion to dismiss the appeal in this action was filed on May 17, 1937. It was therein stated that the basis for the motion was that appellant had failed to file a record on appeal within the time required by the rules of this court. The motion was noticed for hearing on June 8, 1937. Prior to this date the clerk's transcript and appellant's opening brief were filed with this court. It appears from respondent's notice of motion that the judgment from which the appeal has been taken was rendered after a demurrer to appellant's third and supplemental complaint had been sustained and that no evidence was submitted to the trial court. No record other than that provided by the clerk's transcript now on file will be required for determination of the appeal. The fact that the clerk's transcript was on file at the time respondent's motion for dismissal was presented is a sufficient reason for denying the motion. Jaques v. Board of Supervisors, 22 Cal.App. 627, 135 P. 686; Snodgrass v. Hand, 125 Cal.App. 265, 13 P.(2d) 769; Sampson v. Boysen, 5 Cal.App.(2d) 282, 42 P.(2d) 704.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.

JENNINGS, Justice.

We concur: BARNARD, P. J.; MARKS, J.

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Out of date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