Barnhart v. Fulkerth
H. BARNHART v. A. S. FULKERTH
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Paterson, J.
Respondents have moved to dismiss the appeal herein on the following grounds: 1. The notice of motion for a new trial was not served or filed within the time allowed by law; 2. Said notice was not signed by the attorneys of record; 3. The statement was not served or filed within the time allowed by law.
There is an apparent conflict of authority upon the subject, but we think the better rule is stated in Watson v. Sutro, 86 Cal. 500 , where it is held that if the proceedings on appeal are regular, the appeal should not be dismissed upon grounds showing that the court below had no jurisdiction of the proceedings for a new trial; that such matters are proper for consideration on the hearing of the appeal. (See also Smith v. Westerfield, 88 Cal. 374 .)
The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.
Sharpstein, J., Harrison, J., McFarland, J., De Haven, J., and Garoutte, J., concurred.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 13 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.