Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Anglo-California Trust Co. v. Oakland Railways 191 Cal. 387

← Cases

Anglo-California Trust Co. v. Oakland Railways

191 Cal. 387 Court Cal. Decision date 1923-07-02 Docket S. F. No. 10758 English

Contents

Majority

p. 387
[S. F. No. 10758.
In Bank.
July 2, 1923.]
ANGLO-CALIFORNIA TRUST CO. et al., Respondents, v. OAKLAND RAILWAYS (a Corporation) et al., Defendants; OAKLAND RAILWAYS (a Corporation), Appellant.

Headnote

[1] Appeal—Dismissal—Lack or Authority or Attorney.—A motion to dismiss an 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 will be granted, without prejudice.
MOTION to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. James M. Troutt, Judge. Granted.
Werner Olschewski for Appellant.
J. C. McKinstry, MeKinstry, Haber & Firebaugh, Cushing & Cushing and Garret W. McEnerney for Respondents.

[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 Pac. 184 ],

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

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.

Cases cited