Bornheimer v. Baldwin

38 Cal. 671
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1869
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 38 Cal. 671 (Bornheimer v. Baldwin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bornheimer v. Baldwin, 38 Cal. 671 (Cal. 1869).

Opinion

Rhodes, J., delivered the opinion of the Court:

The appeal from the judgment was not taken within one year after the rendition of the judgment, and must, therefore, be dismissed.

The respondent also moves to dismiss the appeal from the order refusing a new trial, on the ground that no undertaking on appeal from that order was given. No offer was made by the appellants to file an undertaking on appeal according to the provisions of Section 3 of the Act of 1861. (Stats. 1861, p. 589.) The undertaking recites the appeal from the judgment, but no mention is therein made of the appeal from the order. It does not secure the payment of the damages and costs which may be awarded against the appellants on the appeal from the order, but only on the appeal from the judgment. There is, therefore, no undertaking on the appeal from the order.

Appeal from the judgment, and the order refusing a new trial, dismissed.

Sprague, J,, expressed no opinion.

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

Related

Granger v. Robinson
46 P. 604 (California Supreme Court, 1896)
Kimbrell v. Rogers
90 Ala. 339 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1890)
Sebree v. Smith
16 P. 477 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1888)
Corcoran v. Desmond
11 P. 815 (California Supreme Court, 1886)
Sharon v. Sharon
9 P. 187 (California Supreme Court, 1885)
Payne v. Davis
2 Mont. 381 (Montana Supreme Court, 1876)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
38 Cal. 671, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bornheimer-v-baldwin-cal-1869.