Engelken v. Justice Court

California Court of Appeal

Engelken v. Justice Court

46 Cal. App. 512

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMarch 10, 1920

DocketCiv. No. 3348

StatusPublished

This text of 46 Cal. App. 512 (Engelken v. Justice Court) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Engelken v. Justice Court, 46 Cal. App. 512 (Cal. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

[1] ~Uhis is an application for a writ of siopersedeas to restrain the respondent from proceeding further with a motion (dated February 5, 1920) to dismiss an appeal which has been taken to this court. Said motion [513]*513made in the trial court was based upon the ground that the undertaking which was filed by appellant was not properly filed.

[2] It is not necessary at this time to pass upon the question of the propriety of the filing of the undertaking. But as a motion to dismiss an appeal can be made in this court only, and such motion must he denied if a proper undertaking, approved by a justice of this court, is filed, it is ordered:

That a writ of supersedeas issue, commanding the respondent to proceed no further with the hearing or determination of said • motion, and, to avoid question as to the sufficiency of the undertaking, it is ordered that the same may be presented to a justice of this court for approval.

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

THE COURT.

[1] ~Uhis is an application for a writ of siopersedeas to restrain the respondent from proceeding further with a motion (dated February 5, 1920) to dismiss an appeal which has been taken to this court. Said motion [513]*513made in the trial court was based upon the ground that the undertaking which was filed by appellant was not properly filed.

[2] It is not necessary at this time to pass upon the question of the propriety of the filing of the undertaking. But as a motion to dismiss an appeal can be made in this court only, and such motion must he denied if a proper undertaking, approved by a justice of this court, is filed, it is ordered:

That a writ of supersedeas issue, commanding the respondent to proceed no further with the hearing or determination of said • motion, and, to avoid question as to the sufficiency of the undertaking, it is ordered that the same may be presented to a justice of this court for approval.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 Cal. App. 512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/engelken-v-justice-court-calctapp-1920.