TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Beets v. Chart

LOUISA BEETS v. OBED CHART

Beets v. Chart, 21 P. 730 (Cal. 1889)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 20, 1889
Docket
No. 11879
Judges
Foote
Citations
21 P. 73079 Cal. 1851889 Cal. LEXIS 693
Syllabus
Appeal—Depecttve Trahbcript—Dismissal. —When there is no certificate of the clerk identifying the papers contained in the transcript as having constituted a part of the record of the court below, and nothing to indicate that a notice of appeal was filed or served, the attempted appeal cannot be heard, and will be dismissed. Id.—Statement on Appeal—Motion por New Trial.—The settlement of what is called a statement on appeal to the supreme court, made after a motion for a new trial has been heard and determined, is not provided for in the code; and if such statement is not certified, settled, or signed by the judge of the trial court, it cannot be considered either as a statement on motion for new trial or as a bill of exceptions.
Summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sonoma County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Foote

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Foote, C,

The appeal in this case was attempted to be taken without having attached to the transcript any *186 certificate of the clerk identifying the papers contained in it as having constituted a part of the record of the court below.

The settlement of what is called “ a statement on appeal to the supreme court,” made after a motion for a new trial had been heard and determined, is not provided for in the code. (People v. Crane, 60 Cal. 279 .) It does not appear to have been certified, settled, or signed by the judge of the trial court, and cannot therefore be considered here either as a statement on motion for a new trial or as a bill of exceptions. (Adams v. Dohrmann, 63 Cal. 418 , and cases cited.)

There is no identification in any lawful way of any of the papers showing that they were ever used in the proceedings, or constituted any part of the record in the court below. There is nothing in the so-called transcript to indicate that any notice of appeal was ever filed or served.

The judgment roll which the appellate court permitted to be filed, when this condition of what is denominated the transcript was called to its attention, contains nothing, nor does the certificate of the clerk or anything else attached thereto, or before the court, which shows that a notice of appeal has been filed, or served. For aught that appears, none has been.

The attempted appeal cannot, therefore, be entertained or heard, and we advise that it be dismissed,

Belcher, C. G., and Havre, C., concurred.

The Court.

For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the appeal is dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1893: 11913: 11914: 22015: 12016: 118932026peak 1914 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Adams v. McPherson34 P. 1095 (Idaho 1893)
  2. Garner v. Meizel133 P. 1165 (Cal. Ct. App. 1913)
  3. Candelas v. Ramírez20 P.R. Dec. 33 (1914)
  4. Reynolds v. 2013-3 SFR VentureNo. D064930 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 5, 2015)
  5. Baize v. Superior CourtNo. D067884 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 5, 2016)
  6. Candelas v. Ramírez20 P.R. 31 (1914)

Most recent

  1. Baize v. Superior CourtNo. D067884 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 5, 2016)
  2. Reynolds v. 2013-3 SFR VentureNo. D064930 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 5, 2015)
  3. Candelas v. Ramírez20 P.R. 31 (1914)
  4. Candelas v. Ramírez20 P.R. Dec. 33 (1914)
  5. Garner v. Meizel133 P. 1165 (Cal. Ct. App. 1913)
  6. Adams v. McPherson34 P. 1095 (Idaho 1893)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
People v. Crane, 60 Cal. 279 (1882) 15

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