Bolton

Pacific Paving Co. v. Bolton

Good Law
1891 Cal. LEXIS 790·89 Cal. 154·26 P. 650
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMay 20, 1891No. 14162California471 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Garoutte, J.

This is a motion to dismiss an appeal from an order denying a new trial.

It is based upon the ground that the appeal was not perfected within the time required by law, inasmuch as appellants filed no undertaking on appeal from the order denying the motion for a new trial.

It appears that appellants filed an undertaking on appeal from the judgment in the sum of three hundred dollars, coupled with an undertaking in the sum of five hundred dollars, for the purpose of staying the execution, conditional upon the affirmance of the judgment.

No reference whatever is found in the undertaking as *155 to any appeal from the order denying defendants’ motion for a new trial.

At the time this motion was heard, appellants had filed a sufficient undertaking in this court, approved by the Chief Justice, claiming the benefits to be derived from section 954 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and claiming that the original undertaking was simply insufficient.

Their contention in this regard cannot be sustained, and their action in filing the undertaking in this court is of no avail.

The filing of a new undertaking in this court, in accordance with the foregoing section of the code, is limited to…

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.