Case Name: MATILDA MORRIS, Appellant, v. PURITY SAUSAGE COMPANY et al., Respondents
Court: District Court of Appeal of the State of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1934-09-27
Citations: 1 Cal. App. 2d 120
Docket Number: Civ. No. 8910
Parties: MATILDA MORRIS, Appellant, v. PURITY SAUSAGE COMPANY et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Appellate Reports, Second Series
Volume: 1
Pages: 120–121

Head Matter:
[Civ. No. 8910.
First Appellate District, Division One.
September 27, 1934.]
MATILDA MORRIS, Appellant, v. PURITY SAUSAGE COMPANY et al., Respondents.
Ingemar E. Hob erg for Appellant.
Cooley, Crowley & Supple for Respondents.

Opinion:
THE COURT.
Appellant by motion sought an order for the diminution of the record on appeal so as to include therein a certain affidavit alleged to have been considered in support of appellant's motion for a new trial.
It appears without dispute that the affidavit in question was served and filed more than ten days after the time permitted by section 659a of the Code of Civil Procedure for the filing of affidavits on motions for a new trial, and, so far as shown, no extension of time was granted. Under such circumstances consideration of the affidavit by the trial court would have been improper (Crofford v. Crofford, 29 Cal. App. 662 [157 Pac. 560]; Terry v. Lesem, 89 Cal. App. 682 [265 Pac. 523]), and we cannot presume that such was the case (2 Cal. Jur., Appeal and Error, sec. 499, p. 852).
The motion is denied.