Bornheimer v. Baldwin

38 Cal. 671
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1869·Published·Cited by 6 cases

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

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

38 Cal. 671 (Bornheimer v. Baldwin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)