History
  • No items yet
midpage
Anglo-California T. Co. v. Oakland Rys.
191 Cal. 387
| Cal. | 1923
|
Check Treatment

Lead Opinion

[1] The motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the attorney who signed the notice of appeal and prepared the transcript was not the attorney of record and that there had been no substitution of attorneys is granted on the authority of Harrigan v. Bolte, 67 Cal. xxi [8 P. 184].

On August 3, 1923, the supreme court modified the foregoing order as follows:






Addendum

Application to modify order of dismissal herein by providing that the dismissal is without prejudice to another appeal. Inasmuch as the appeal was dismissed because of lack of authority of attorney to file notice of appeal, therefore, in effect, no notice of appeal whatever has been filed, the order heretofore made is modified to provide that the dismissal is without prejudice. *Page 388

Case Details

Case Name: Anglo-California T. Co. v. Oakland Rys.
Court Name: California Supreme Court
Date Published: Jul 2, 1923
Citation: 191 Cal. 387
Docket Number: S. F. No. 10758.
Court Abbreviation: Cal.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.