Blair v. Brownstone Oil & Refining Co.

California Court of Appeal

Blair v. Brownstone Oil & Refining Co.

21 Cal. App. 676

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Blair v. Brownstone Oil & Refining Co.. Read the opinion of the Court — 20 Cal. App. 316 →

California Court of Appeal·Decided April 7, 1913·No. Civ. No. 1321·Published

Opinion

THE COURT.

Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order denying a new trial. The record shows that notice of appeal from the judgment and from an order denying a new trial was duly given; that within a day or two succeeding an undertaking on appeal from the judgment was filed. Respondents contend that the appeal from the order should be dismissed because the same was not included in the undertaking given. Upon the authority of Mitchell v. California etc. Steamship Co., 154 Cal. 731, [99 Pac. 202], the motion must be denied. It is there held that the notice of appeal is sufficient regardless of the filing of the undertaking.

Motion denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THE COURT.

Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order denying a new trial. The record shows that notice of appeal from the judgment and from an order denying a new trial was duly given; that within a day or two succeeding an undertaking on appeal from the judgment was filed. Respondents contend that the appeal from the order should be dismissed because the same was not included in the undertaking given. Upon the authority of Mitchell v. California etc. Steamship Co., 154 Cal. 731, [99 Pac. 202], the motion must be denied. It is there held that the notice of appeal is sufficient regardless of the filing of the undertaking.

Motion denied.

Blair v. Brownstone Oil & Refining Co., 21 Cal. App. 676 (Cal. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

21 Cal. App. 676 (Blair v. Brownstone Oil & Refining Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related