General
RICHARD KIRMAN et al., Respondents, v. N. B. HUNNEWILL et al., Appellants
91 Cal. 157·Supreme Court of California·1891·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
[No. 14463.
In Bank.
September 11, 1891.]
RICHARD KIRMAN et al., Respondents, v. N. B. HUNNEWILL et al., Appellants.
Appeal from Judgment — Dismissal. — An appeal from a judgment taken more than one year after its entry will be dismissed upon motion of the respondent.
Id.—Appeal from New-trial Order—Stay of Execution. —Whether the appellants are entitled to have the execution of the judgment stayed until the determination of an appeal from an order denying a new trial cannot be considered upon a motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment.
Motion to dismiss appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Mono County.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
William O. Parker, C. A. Schuman, and James E. Goodal, for Appellants.
Richard S. Miner, for Respondents.
[MAJORITY — The Court.]
The Court.
Motion to dismiss appeal.
The judgment in this cause was entered November 2, 1888, and the appeal therefrom was not.taken until more than one year thereafter; viz., December 8, 1890. The motion to dismiss the appeal therefrom must therefore be granted.
Whether the appellants are entitled to have the execution of the judgment stayed until the determination of the appeal from the order denying a new trial cannot be considered upon this motion. (See Fulton v. Hanna, 40 Cal. 278.)
The appeal from the judgment is dismissed.