From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pilger v. Strassman

Supreme Court of California
Jan 28, 1898
119 Cal. 691 (Cal. 1898)

Opinion

         Department Two

         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco and from an order denying a new trial. James M. Troutt, Judge.

         COUNSEL:

         Henry E. Highton, for Appellants.

         Dunne & McPike, and Walter H. Levy, for Respondents.


         OPINION

         THE COURT          This cause is before the court upon the motion of respondents to dismiss the appeals from the judgment and order denying appellants' motion for a new trial, upon the ground that appellants have failed to file any points and authorities within the time prescribed by the rules of this court. It appears from the moving papers that the transcript of appeal was filed, after a long extension had been given for filing the same, on May 22, 1897; that after the filing of the transcript appellants were given by respondents an extension of fifty-two days beyond the thirty days allowed by the rules within which to file their points and authorities; that further time was asked by appellants and refused by respondents, and that thereafter appellants obtained from this court a further extension of twenty days, and that no points were filed within said time. We have carefully examined the affidavits presented on behalf of appellants in opposition to the motion, and we find in them no reasonable excuse for not preparing and filing the points and authorities within the long period of time granted them by said extensions.

         The motion is granted, and said appeals are dismissed.


Summaries of

Pilger v. Strassman

Supreme Court of California
Jan 28, 1898
119 Cal. 691 (Cal. 1898)
Case details for

Pilger v. Strassman

Case Details

Full title:MATILDA PILGER et al., Appellants, v. MAX STRASSMAN, et al., Respondents

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Jan 28, 1898

Citations

119 Cal. 691 (Cal. 1898)
52 P. 40

Citing Cases

People v. Ephraim

This was the real issue before the jury and it was incumbent upon the appellant to prove that she had…

Patterson v. Keeney

It is the established rule in this state that enforced satisfaction of a judgment does not prevent the…