Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Poole v. Grand Circle, Women of Woodcraft 17 Cal. App. 229

← Cases

Poole v. Grand Circle, Women of Woodcraft

17 Cal. App. 229 Court Second Appellate District. Decision date 1911-10-06 Docket Civ. No. 1009 English

Contents

Majority

p. 229
[Civ. No. 1009.
Second Appellate District.
October 6, 1911.]
JOHN R. POOLE, Respondent, v. GRAND CIRCLE, WOMEN OF WOODCRAFT, a Corporation, Appellant.

Headnote

Motion to Dismiss Appeal—Failure to File Transcript of Judgment-roll—Filing Before Hearing—Denial of Motion.—Where a motion is noticed to dismiss an appeal for a failure to file a transcript of the judgment-roll, and before the hearing of the motion a certified transcript of the record is filed, the filing thereof is a sufficient answer to the motion, and it will be denied. In such case, ail that is essential to a review of the action of the superior court is before this court.
Id.—Nature of Motion Under Bule—Avoidable Objection to Transcript.-—A motion to dismiss an appeal under rule XV of the supreme court may be considered as an objection to the transcript, affecting the appellant’s right to be heard, which is answered by the filing of the requisite transcript before the objection is sustained.
Id.—Object and Liberal Construction of Bule.—The object of rule XV is to enable the appellant to remedy a defect or omission of the transcript, for the purpose of enabling him to present his appeal upon the merits, and the rule is to be liberally construed for that purpose.
p. 230
MOTION to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. F. E. Densmore, Judge presiding.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
John H. Foley, for Appellant.
Charles S. Burnell, for Respondent.

Motion to dismiss appeal. The only reason suggested in support of said motion is the failure of appellant, before the filing of said motion, to cause to be transmitted to this court, a copy of the judgment-roll. It does appear that within seven days after service of notice of motion, and before the hearing thereof, appellant caused a transcript embracing such judgment-roll to be filed. All that is essential to a review of the action of the superior court is now before this court. Under rule XV of the supreme court, [144 Cal. xlvii, 78 Pac. x], respondent’s motion may be considered as an objection to the transcript, affecting appellant’s right to be heard, and the same was answered by filing the transcript embracing the judgment-roll. “The object of the above-mentioned rule is to enable the appellant to remedy any defect or omission of the transcript for the purpose of enabling him to present his appeal upon the merits, and is to be liberally construed for that purpose.” (Warren v. Hopkins, 110 Cal. 509 , [ 42 Pac. 987 ].)

Motion to dismiss appeal denied.