Bennett

Bennett v. Superior Court

Good Law
113 Cal. 440·1896 Cal. LEXIS 808·45 P. 808
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 23, 1896S. F. No. 194California946 words

Opinion

Dissenting Opinion

Beatty, J.

I dissent. Gassen by signing the bond became a party to and was bound by it. (Dore v. Covey, 13 Cal. 502 .)

The justification was therefore sufficient, and the appeal was duly perfected irrespective of the action of the superior court in allowing a new bond to be filed.

Lead Opinion

Garoutte, J.

This is an application for a writ of review. The petitioner asks that the writ issue for the purpose of reviewing the action of the superior court of the county of San Diego, in certain litigation then pending before it, as being in excess of its jurisdiction. The salient facts presented by the petition, and the return to the writ, may be stated as follows: The defendants in a certain action desired to appeal from a money judgment rendered against them, before a justice of the peace and in favor of this petitioner. They filed an undertaking upon appeal, with one Chase and one Newkirk as sureties thereon. -Bennett, the respondent, objected to the sufficiency of these sureties, and, at the time fixed for their justification, Chase appeared and justified. New-kirk did not appear. Thereupon the appellants secured one Gassen to attach his name to the undertaking, and he qualified before the justice of the peace in the amount called for by the body of the instrument. Respondent’s counsel was present at this time, and expressly reserved his right to object to the proceeding. The papers upon appeal being forwarded to the superior court, respondent there moved to dismiss the appeal,…

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.