Case Name: JAMES DESMOND, Appellant, v. OTTO FAUS et al., Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1890-02-10
Citations: 83 Cal. 134
Docket Number: No. 13553
Parties: JAMES DESMOND, Appellant, v. OTTO FAUS et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 83
Pages: 134–135

Head Matter:
[No. 13553.
In Bank.
February 10, 1890.]
JAMES DESMOND, Appellant, v. OTTO FAUS et al., Respondents.
Appeal—Dismissal — Failure to File Tbaescbipt — Order of Justices of Supreme Court.'— An appeal will not be dismissed for failure to file the transcript within the time otherwise limited, if the time has been extended by order of four justices of the sup>reme court, of which order notice was given to counsel for respondent before the time had elapsed and before service of the motion to dismiss the appeal, though the order is not filed until after service of the motion, owing to inadvertence of the appellant’s counsel. A paper signed by four justices of the court, and purporting to be an order, is an order of the court before it is filed.
Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
James F. Smith, for Appellant.
F. J. Gastelhun, for Respondents.

Opinion:
Thornton, J.
Motion to dismiss appeal for failure to file transcript in time.
By stipulation, the time to file the transcript had been extended to and including the 10th of October, 1889.
By a writing signed by four .justices of this court on the 8th of October, 1889, the time to file the transcript was further extended twenty days from the 10th of October, 1889. This paper was not filed, but a copy of it was served on the attorney of defendants on the said 10th of October.
The order was filed after notice of motion to dismiss was served, and before hearing of the motion.
• It is now objected that the writing was of no force,— was not an order until filed, — and therefore the time was not extended.
We are inclined to think that the paper signed by the four justices was an order of court before filing. It was a writing signed by the justices, and purported to be an order. (See Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1003.)
We are satisfied that the failure to file the writing was an inadvertence, and that the appeal should not be dismissed. The respondents knew that the writing existed, by the service of a copy on their counsel.
We do not think the ends of justice would be promoted by dismissing this appeal (Grant v. De Lamori, 71 Cal. 329), and'the motion must be denied.
So ordered.
McFarland, J., Sharpstein, J., Beatty, C. J., Fox, J., and Paterson, J., concurred.