TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Grande v. Donovan

DAISY GRANDE, Respondent, v. JAMES DONOVAN Et Al., Appellants

Grande v. Donovan, 131 P.2d 855 (Cal. Ct. App. 1942)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Court of Appeal · State Appellate Courts
Decided
November 27, 1942
Docket
No. Civ. 13842
Judges
McCOMB
Citations
131 P.2d 85555 Cal. App. 2d 6941942 Cal. App. LEXIS 118

Opinion — McCOMB

*695 McCOMB, J.

Respondent moves to dismiss this appeal upon the ground that it was not taken within the time prescribed by section 939 of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore that this court is without jurisdiction to entertain the same.

It is conceded that June 2, 1942, the clerk of the trial court made an entry in his “rough minutes,” granting respondent’s motion to terminate the proceedings then pending before said court for the purpose of procuring a transcript for use upon appeal; likewise that such order was not entered in the regular minutes of said court until June 3, 1942; also that August 2, 1942, fell on Sunday. The notice of appeal in the present case from the aforementioned order was filed August 3, 1942.

This is the sole question necessary for us to determine:

Was appellant’s notice of appeal filed within the time prescribed by section 939 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to wit, within sixty days from the entry of the order in the trial court terminating the proceedings for the preparation of the transcript to be used on appeal?

This question must be answered in the affirmative and is governed by the following principles of law:

(1) The time for filing a notice of appeal runs from the actual entry of the order from which an appeal is taken in the regular minutes of the court and not from the entry in the “rough minutes” of the clerk.

(Berman v. Blankenship Motors, 140 Cal.App. 134, 135 [ 34 P.2d 1035 ]; see, also, 2 Cal.Jur. (1921) 396, § 166.)

(2) The time within which an action provided by law is to be done is computed by excluding the first day and including the last, unless the last day is a holiday, in which event it is also excluded. (§ 12, Code Civ. Proc.;

Adolph Ramish, Inc., v. Behr, 40 Cal.App.2d 54, 55 [ 104 P.2d 410 ].)

(3) Where the last day of the period within which an appeal from an order is permitted is Sunday, a non-judicial day, an appeal filed on the following day, Monday, is in time.

(Estate of Rose, 63 Cal. 346, 347 ;

Hoover v. Sweitzer, 34 Cal.App.2d 441 [ 93 P.2d 831 ].)

Applying the foregoing rules to the facts of the instant case, appellant pursuant to the provisions of section 939 of the Code of Civil Procedure had sixty days from the entry of the order in the trial court within which to appeal from the same. The sixty-day period commenced to run on June 3, the date the order was entered in the regular minutes of *696 the court. The sixtieth day thus fell on August 2, 1942, which was Sunday, and, therefore, under the second rule above stated should be excluded in computing the time within which appellant was permitted to appeal, and the notice of appeal, having been filed on the following day, Monday, August 3, 1942, was filed within time.

For the foregoing reasons the motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.

Moore, P. J., and Wood (W. J.), J., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1946: 11950: 11953: 11991: 119462026peak 1946 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Glesby v. Glesby166 P.2d 347 (Cal. Ct. App. 1946)
  2. Crofoot v. Blair Holdings Corp.119 Cal. App. 2d 156 (1953)
  3. MAURO B. v. Superior Court230 Cal. App. 3d 949 (1991)
  4. King v. Wilson225 P.2d 270 (Cal. Ct. App. 1950)

Most recent

  1. MAURO B. v. Superior Court230 Cal. App. 3d 949 (1991)
  2. Crofoot v. Blair Holdings Corp.119 Cal. App. 2d 156 (1953)
  3. King v. Wilson225 P.2d 270 (Cal. Ct. App. 1950)
  4. Glesby v. Glesby166 P.2d 347 (Cal. Ct. App. 1946)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
Hoover v. Sweitzer, 93 P.2d 831 (Cal. Ct. App. 1939) 5
Adolph Ramish, Inc. v. Behr, 104 P.2d 410 (Cal. Ct. App. 1940) 5
Berman v. Blankenship Motors, 34 P.2d 1035 (Cal. Ct. App. 1934) 5
In re the Estate of Rose, 63 Cal. 346 (1883) 6

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list