Genella v. Relyea
Cases that cite this one
19 later published cases cite this decision.
- Aspegren Co., Inc. v. Sherman, Swan Co. (Cal. 1926)
- Davis v. Rudolph (Cal. Ct. App. 1947)
- Bell v. McDermoth (Cal. 1926)
- Platnauer v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. 1917)
- In re Writ of Habeas Corpus in behalf of Schantz (N.D. 1913)
- Kinsley v. New Vulture Mining Co. (Ariz. 1907)
- Mears v. Shaw (Mont. 1905)
- Bell v. Staacke (Cal. 1902)
- Mentzer v. Davis (Iowa 1899)
- Mayer v. Haggerty (Ind. 1894)
- Crim v. Kessing (Cal. 1891)
- Harmon v. Comstock Horse & Cattle Co. (Mont. 1890)
- In re the Estate of Cook (Cal. 1888)
- Horn v. Miller (Neb. 1886)
- Sharon v. Sharon (Cal. 1885)
- Trenouth v. Farrington (Cal. 1880)
- Anderson v. Mitchell (Ind. 1877)
- King v. Higgins (Multnomah County Circuit Court, Oregon 1872)
- Wetherbee v. Dunn (Cal. 1868)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The Court announced its judgment, and the order for judgment was entered in the minutes of the Court on the 15th of August, 1865. The judgment was therefore rendered, and the time for taking an appeal commenced to run on that day. (Gray v. Palmer, 28 Cal. 416 ; Peck v. Courtis, 31 Cal. 207.) But the judgment was actually drawn up in the form in which
As to that portion of the appeal “ from all orders of the District Court, made and entered in the said two actions jointly and severally, either before or after judgment,” the notice of appeal is too general. It points out no particular order, and is insufficient. But if, as supposed by respondent, the intention was to appeal from the orders of December 26th, 1865, striking out statement on motion for new trial, and refusing motion to certify statement, more than sixty days had elapsed after the entry of the orders before the service of notice of appeal, and the appeal was not in time. Besides, no appeal lies from those orders. (Prac. Act, Sections 336 and 347 ; Leffingwell v. Griffing, 29 Cal. 193 ; Ketchum v. Crippen, 31 Cal. 365.) The appeal was not in time and must be dismissed, and it is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Shaeter, being disqualified, did not sit in this case.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.