Summary
In Home and Loan Associates v. Wilkins, 71 Cal. 626, two appeals were taken, and one bond of three hundred dollars given.
Summary of this case from Spreckels v. SpreckelsOpinion
Department Two
Hearing in Bank denied.
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco vacating a prior order refusing a writ of assistance, and from an order granting a writ of assistance.
Motion to dismiss appeals.
COUNSEL:
E. A. & G. E. Lawrence, for Appellants.
J. R. Brandon, for Respondent.
JUDGES: Thornton, J. McFarland, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.
OPINION
THORNTON, Judge
Motion to dismiss appeals.
In this case appellant took appeals from two orders, and filed one undertaking on appeal not distinctly referring to either appeal. The language used in the undertaking filed recites only one appeal without distinguishing which of the two appeals was referred to. The undertaking so filed is no undertaking at all. It is so ambiguous [12 P. 800] that it must be regarded as if none had been filed. (People v. Center , 61 Cal. 191; Corcoran v. Desmond, ante, p. 100.)
An application is made to this court by appellant to be allowed to file the proper undertakings under section 954, Code of Civil Procedure. The section referred to does not authorize it. It only authorizes a new undertaking when the one filed is insufficient. But in this case there has really been none filed. To allow new ones to be filed would be in effect to permit a new appeal to be perfected after the time fixed by law. (Hastings v. Halleck , 10 Cal. 31.)
Application to file other undertakings denied, and the appeals dismissed.