TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Paige v. Roeding

TIMOTHY PAIGE v. FREDERICK ROEDING

Paige v. Roeding, 26 P. 787 (Cal. 1891)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 14, 1891
Docket
No. 14262
Judges
McFarland
Citations
26 P. 78789 Cal. 691891 Cal. LEXIS 773
Syllabus
Appeal—Dismissal — Omission op Part of Judgment Roll — Diminution of Record.—An appeal from a judgment will not be dismissed merely because some part of the judgment roll is omitted from the transcript, where it does not appear that the omitted parts are importante An omission, if deemed important, may be remedied by suggestion of a diminution of the record*
Summary
Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

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

Opinion of the Court — McFarland

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

McFarland, J.

— This cause is before us on a motion of respondents to dismiss the appeal, upon the ground that the transcript filed by appellants does not contain a copy of the judgment roll.

Section 950 of the Code of Civil Procedure directs that on an appeal from a final judgment the court must be furnished with a copy of the judgment roll; and section 954 provides that “ if the appellant fails to furnish the requisite papers, the appeal may be dismissed.” This power to dismiss might perhaps be properly exercised in extreme cases; but it frequently happens that the whole of a judgment roll is not “ requisite ” to the full determination of an appeal. And it would be unjust to dismiss an appeal merely because some part of the roll had been, inadvertently, perhaps, omitted from the transcript. If the omission be deemed material by respondent, he can easily remedy the supposed defect by suggestion of a diminution of the record. In the case at bar, the asserted defects in the copy of the judgment roll, which do not very clearly appear from the certifi *70 cate of the clerk, are not important enough to authorize a dismissal of the appeal.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.

Harrison, J., Paterson, J., Garoutte, J.3 and De Haven, J., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

1891: 11897: 11938: 218912026peak 1938 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Union FM v. Southern Cal. FM10 Cal. 2d 671 (1938)
  2. Union Flower Market, Ltd. v. Southern California Flower Market, Inc.10 Cal. 671 (1938)
  3. Tompkins v. Montgomery47 P. 1006 (Cal. 1897)
  4. Richardson v. City of Eureka28 P. 102 (Cal. 1891)

Most recent

  1. Union FM v. Southern Cal. FM10 Cal. 2d 671 (1938)
  2. Union Flower Market, Ltd. v. Southern California Flower Market, Inc.10 Cal. 671 (1938)
  3. Tompkins v. Montgomery47 P. 1006 (Cal. 1897)
  4. Richardson v. City of Eureka28 P. 102 (Cal. 1891)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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