Lowell

Lowell v. Lowell

Good Law
55 Cal. 316
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 1, 1880No. 6,728California507 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

McKinstry, J.

These are cross-appeals, the plaintiff appealing from the whole judgment, and the defendant from that portion thereof which decrees the defendant to pay the sum of $100 to A. C. Freeman, attorney for plaintiff, for services rendered.

Defendant’s counsel moved to dismiss the appeal of plaintiff, on the ground that the undertaking on appeal was not filed within one year after the judgment was entered.

An appeal is taken by filing and service of the notice, but it is effectual for no,purpose until the undertaking is filed. The failure to file the undertaking within the time prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure renders the notice nugatory, but if *319 filed within that time the appeal is well taken. (Peran v. Monroe, 1 Nev 484 ; McCreery v. Everding, No. 5,046. See, also, Holcomb v. Sawyer, in which case a rehearing was granted, and the question decided as herein, but the original opinion in which was reported by mistake, at 51 Cal. 417 .)

The action was brought by plaintiff to obtain a divorce from defendant, a partition of their homestead, for alimony, and for maintenance of her child, and to be let into possession of the homestead. Defendant, by way of cross-complaint,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.