WRIGHT v. WRIGHT (1941)

District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, California.

WRIGHT v. WRIGHT.

Civ. 2617

Decided: February 14, 1941

N. Lindsay South and Charles A. Hill, both of Fresno, for appellant. Rae B. Carter and Harris, Willey & Harris, all of Fresno, for respondent.

This is a motion to dismiss the appeal from a judgment, and from an order denying the motion for new trial. Such an order is not appealable. Sec. 963, Code Civ.Proc.

There is nothing on file here other than the moving papers and the certificate of the county clerk, from which it appears that the motion for new trial was denied on April 27, 1940; that notice of its denial was filed on April 29, 1940; that notice of appeal and notice to prepare the transcript were filed on May 8, 1940; that on September 17, 1940, the trial court terminated the proceedings for preparation of transcript; that there are no proceedings pending for the settlement of a bill of exceptions, or transcript on appeal. Under such circumstances the motion must be granted. Bales v. Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co., 3 Cal.App.2d 43, 38 P.2d 799; Carrasco v. Marcus, 18 Cal.App.2d 96, 62 P.2d 1405; Olinger v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, 18 Cal.App.2d 104, 62 P.2d 1406.

The appeal is dismissed.

MARKS, Justice.

We concur: BARNARD, P.J.; GRIFFIN, 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Out of date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