Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2 Cal. 95

Leech v. West

California Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1852

California Supreme Court · decided 1852-01-15

The respondent filed his complaint against the appellants, stating that the plaintiff, being in possession of a water lot in San Francisco, lying between Pacific and Jackson streets, and bounded on the east by Front street, and occupying a part of it with his ship, called the Balance, which was well secured, &c.: while the keeper of the vessel was absent, the defendants wrongfully broke said vessel from her moorings, and towed her, with a steamer, into the bay, and cast her…

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently November 1937

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1852-01-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Justice Heydenfeldt

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court. In this case, a preliminary question is raised by the respondent, the decision of which renders it unnecessary to examine the record any further. Under the statute regulating appeals, twenty days are allowed the appellant to frame his statement of facts, &e.; and the Court below may allow further time upon good cause being shewn. The statute also declares, that if the party shall fail to make out his statement within the twenty days allowed, he shall be deemed to have waived his right.

¶2The appellant allowed the twenty days to expire without taking any step as the law required, or obtaining further time; and afterwards, without notice to the respondent, obtained an order of the Court below granting further time to make out a statement of the case, which he did, and obtained the certificate of the judge. The statement so made now accompanies the record.

¶3We are constrained to decide that this practice is in violation of the statute. A right which the law declares in positive terms to be waived, cannot be restored by the action of any judicial tribunal. If such a construction of the act was admitted, the discretion of the Court below would be unlimited as to time, and parties recovering judgments would not have the assurance to which they are entitled of being free from litigation. We regard *99the act as a statute of repose, and feel bound to give it full effect.

¶4The statement, therefore, in the transcript of this cause has no legitimate existence, as a part of the record; and there being no error elsewhere, the judgment is affirmed.

/2/cal/95 · .json · Public domain