General
MARTHA FREUND, Respondent, v. HAMILTON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY et al., Appellants; JOHN E. HAMILTON, Appellant, v. MARTHA FREUND, Respondent
107 Cal. App. 54·District Court of Appeal of the State of California·1930·CA
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
[Civ. No. 7487.
First Appellate District, Division One.
July 1, 1930.]
MARTHA FREUND, Respondent, v. HAMILTON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY et al., Appellants. JOHN E. HAMILTON, Appellant, v. MARTHA FREUND, Respondent.
George B. Harris, Gavin McNab and Schmnlowitz, Wyman, Aikins & Bruñe for Appellants.
Harry S. Whitthorne and Twain Michelsen for Respondent.
[MAJORITY — THE COURT.]
THE COURT.
A motion by Martha Freund, a party to the above-entitled actions for an order dismissing the appeals of Hamilton Construction Company and John E. Hamilton and John E. Hamilton individually and doing business under the name and style of Hamilton Construction Company taken therein, upon the ground that said appeals have not been prosecuted with due diligence.
It appears there has been delay in the filing of the transcript on appeal in this court, but the record fails to show that the proceedings for a transcript in the court below have been terminated and the motion must for that reason be denied. (Rule 6, sec. 1, Rules of the Supreme Court; Crocker v. Crocker, 76 Cal. App. 606 [245 Pac. 438]; Smith v. Jaccard, 20 Cal. App. 280 [128 Pac. 1023, 1026].)
The motion is denied.