From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schloesser v. Owen

Supreme Court of California,In Bank
Nov 21, 1901
134 Cal. 546 (Cal. 1901)

Opinion

Sac. No. 855.

November 21, 1901.

MOTIONS to dismiss appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court of Lassen County and from an order denying a new trial. F.A. Kelley, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

C.L. Claflin, J.T. Boyd, and W.M. Boardman, for Appellant.

Goodwin Goodwin, and N.J. Barry, for Respondent.


Motions to dismiss appeals from the judgment and order denying a new trial. The undertaking on the appeal from the judgment was not filed until thirty days after the notice of appeal was served and filed, but it was filed within the time as extended by order of the judge of the court, and it has been decided that the court or judge has the power to make such an order. (Wadsworth v. Wadsworth, 74 Cal. 104.) That decision has never been questioned, and we see no reason to question it. The proof of service of the notices of appeal, if defective originally, is cured by the affidavit filed in pursuance of leave granted at the hearing.

The motions are denied.

McFarland, J., Garoutte, J., Harrison, J., Temple, J., and Van Dyke, J., concurred.


Summaries of

Schloesser v. Owen

Supreme Court of California,In Bank
Nov 21, 1901
134 Cal. 546 (Cal. 1901)
Case details for

Schloesser v. Owen

Case Details

Full title:A.G. SCHLOESSER, Respondent, v. J.S. OWEN, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court of California,In Bank

Date published: Nov 21, 1901

Citations

134 Cal. 546 (Cal. 1901)
66 P. 726

Citing Cases

Rauer's Law and Collection Company v. Standley

But he was not required to do so thereafter unless the time in which to file the undertaking had been…

Kettelle v. Superior Court

In view of the code sections, to which we have referred, we perceive no good reason why the power to extend…