Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

175 Cal. 130

165 P 523

Bernschein v. Whitaker

California Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1917

California Supreme Court · decided 1917-05-15

MOTION to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. John Hunt, Judge. The facts are stated in- the opinion of the court.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1917-05-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently November 1934

6 state decisions

40191719201930decided

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 The ten days’ time “after notice of decision” denying a motion for new trial or “other termination” of such a motion, within which a party may file demand for record under section 953a of the Code of Civil Procedure, or may serve a proposed hill of exceptions under section 650 of the Code of Civil Procedure, commences to run immediately upon the failure of the trial court to pass on the motion within three months after the verdict of the jury or service on the moving party of notice of decision of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 660.) Written notice of the decision denying the motion is not essential under these particular statutory provisions. Actual .¡.otice only is required, and in the event of such a termination of the new trial proceeding, as we have stated, the law itself gives the notice.

¶2*131 It follows that no valid* proceeding for a record in lieu of a bill of exceptions, or for a bill of exceptions, was ever instituted, and, consequently, that the time for filing transcript on appeal in this court expired before the making of this motion.

¶3 This conclusion necessitates the dismissal of the appeal.

¶4 The appeal is dismissed.

/175/cal/130 · .json · Public domain