TALIAFERRO v. DAVIS (1963)

District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 3, California.

E. A. TALIAFERRO, Cross-complainant and Appellant. v. Dorothy DAVIS, Cross-defendant and Respondent.

Civ. 20659.

Decided: June 14, 1963

E. A. Taliaferro, in pro. per. Frisbie & Hoogs, Berkeley, for respondent.

Cross-complainant appeals from an order striking his cross-complaint as to respondent. Memorandum decision announced grant of the motion and directed respondent's counsel to prepare formal order. That order was dated and filed December 20, 1961.

Appellant had 60 days within which to file his notice of appeal (Cal.Rules of Court, Rule 2[a]). That time ran from filing of the order (id., Rule 2[b] 2, 4). The first day of the 60 was December 21 (O'Donnell v. City & County of San Francisco, 147 Cal.App.2d 63, 66, 304 P.2d 852). The sixtieth day thus was February 18, 1962. Since that date fell on Sunday, the notice would be timely if filed Monday, February 19 (Code Civ.Proc., §§ 12, 12a). Appellant did not file it until Tuesday, February 20. The time limit for filing this notice is jurisdictional (In re Del Campo, 55 Cal.2d 816, 817, 13 Cal.Rptr. 192, 361 P.2d 912). This court has no discretion, but must dismiss the appeal on its own motion (Langan v. Langan, 89 Cal. 186, 195, 26 P. 764; and see Estate of Hanley, 23 Cal.2d 120, 123, 142 P.2d 423, 149 A.L.R. 1250).

Appeal dismissed.

DRAPER, Presiding Justice.

Salsman and Devine, JJ., concur.

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Out of date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