Podesta v. Deluchi, 277 P. 364 (Cal. Ct. App. 1929). · Go Syfert
Podesta v. Deluchi, 277 P. 364 (Cal. Ct. App. 1929). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Gelini v. City & County of San Francisco (calctapp, 1962-01-22)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Gelini v. City & County of San Francisco (2×)
Cal. Ct. App. · 1962 · signal: see also · confidence low
(Courtell v. McEachen, 147 Cal.App.2d 219, 221 [ 305 P.2d 115 ]; see also Podesta v. Deluchi, 98 Cal.App. 579 [ 277 P. 364 ].) We realize that we cannot review the failure of a trial court to give a certain instruction unless the record specifies such instruction and shows that it was requested and refused. (3 Cal.Jur.2d, p. 820.) We further realize that the granting or refusing of a request such as that now made by plaintiff is discretionary with this court.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
ANTHONY PODESTA Et Al., Appellants,
v.
EUGENE DELUCHI Et Al., Respondents
Docket No. 6819..
California Court of Appeal.
Apr 29, 1929.
277 P. 364
1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 716
A. D. Schaffer and Anthony Podesta for Appellants., Gumpert & Mazzera, Frederick M. Shipper, Edward F. Sullivan and Geo. Harry Sullivan for Respondents.
Nourse.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
[*580] NOURSE, Acting P. J.

The appellants have moved for an order for diminution of the record asking that they be permitted to file a modified bill of exceptions for the purpose of including therein instructions requested by either party to the action whether given or not given and all instructions given by the trial court of its own motion.

The appeal was taken on a bill of exceptions which was settled after hearing of proposed amendments thereto on April 20, 1928. At the time of the settlement of this bill the instructions which are now sought to be included were expressly omitted and the parties stipulated that the appeal could be heard upon the bill of exceptions as settled. The motion for diminution of the record was made on April 17, 1929, nearly one year after the settlement of the bill of exceptions and after the appellants’ and respondents’ briefs had both been filed on this appeal. In opposition to the motion respondents insist that appellants are guilty of-laches in making the motion and in their failure to apply to the trial court for relief in the settlement of the bill of exceptions. Without assuming that this court would have any jurisdiction to amend and supplement a bill of exceptions settled by the trial court we are satisfied that the motion must be denied because of the - unexcused delay of the appellants in seeking this relief.

Motion is denied.

Sturtevant, J., and Burroughs, J., pro tem., concurred.