Case ID: cal-unrep_6/html/0878-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "TEMPLE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CROOKS v. CROOKS.
    S. F. No. 2985;
    March 12, 1902.
    68 Pac. 101.
    Appeal—Bill of Exceptions.—Where the Failure to have a bill of exceptions, which an appellant has proposed to be used on. an appeal, settled, was not caused by any fault or laches of such appellant, a motion to dismiss the appeal will not be granted.
    APPEAL from Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco; J. V. Coffey, Judge.
    Action by Samuel R. Crooks, guardian, against Annie T. Crooks. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Motion to dismiss appeal. Denied.
    Sullivan & Sullivan and T. J. Roche for appellant; O. I. Wise for respondent.
   TEMPLE, J.

It appearing that the appellant has proposed a bill of exceptions to be used on the appeal, and that said bill is not yet settled and certified, and that the failure to have such bill of exceptions settled was not caused by any laches or other fault of the appellant, the motion to dismiss is denied.

We concur: Beatty, C. J.; McFarland, J.; Harrison, J.; Garoutte, J.; Van Dyke, J.