Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

148 Cal. 699

84 P 37

Matthai v. Kennedy

California Supreme Court

Decided February 12, 1906

California Supreme Court · decided 1906-02-12

MOTION to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County dismissing an action. F. B. Ogden, Jndge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Relies on Pacific Paving Co. v. Vizelich · Marks v. Keenan · Swortfiguer v. White

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1906-02-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently October 1934

7 state decisions

301906191019201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

THE COURT.

¶1 Plaintiff's action was dismissed on August 26, 1904, an order to that effect being entered upon the minutes of the court, as provided by section 581 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Subsequently, upon the twenty-third *700 day of February, 1905, the clerk entered a judgment of dismissal. Plaintiff’s appeal was taken within six months from the last-named date, but more than six months from the entry of the minute order. Defendant moves to dismiss the appeal upon this ground, and the motion must be granted. It is well settled by our decisions that the entry of the order of dismissal in the minute-book of the court, being declared by the statute to be “effective for all purposes,” is in its nature a final judgment, and from the date of that entry the time within which an appeal may be taken begins to run (Marks v. Keenan, 140 Cal. 33, [73 Pac. 751]; Pacific Pav. Co. v. Vizelich, 141 Cal. 4,. [74 Pac. 352]; Swortfiguer v. White, 141 Cal. 579, [75 Pac. 172].)

¶2 As this appeal was not taken within the time limited by law, it must be dismissed; and it is so ordered.

/148/cal/699 · .json · Public domain