Home & Loan Associates v. Wilkins

12 P. 799, 71 Cal. 626, 1887 Cal. LEXIS 440
California Supreme Court·Decided January 31, 1887·No. No. 11592·Published·Cited by 17 cases

Opinion

Thornton, J.

Motion to dismiss appeals.

In this case appellant took appeals from, two orders, and filed one undertaking on appeal not distinctly referring to either appeal. The language used in the undertaking filed recites only - one appeal without distinguishing which of the two appeals was referred to. The undertaking so filed is no undertaking at all. It is so ambiguous that it must be regarded as if none had been filed. (People v. Center, 61 Cal. 191; Corcoran v. Desmond, ante, p. 100.)

An application is made to this court by appellant to be allowed to file the proper undertakings under section 954, Code of Civil Procedure. The section referred to does not authorize it. It only authorizes a new undertaking when the one filed is insufficient. But in this [627]*627case there has really been none filed. To allow new ones to be filed would be in effect to permit a new appeal to be perfected after the time fixed by law. (Hastings v. Halleck, 10 Cal. 31.)

Application to file other undertakings denied, and the appeals dismissed.

McFarland, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.

Hearing in Bank denied.

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

Home & Loan Associates v. Wilkins, 12 P. 799, 71 Cal. 626, 1887 Cal. LEXIS 440 (Cal. 1887).

12 P. 799 (Home & Loan Associates v. Wilkins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Watson v. Pryor
193 P. 797 (California Court of Appeal, 1920)
Theisen v. Matthai
131 P. 747 (California Supreme Court, 1913)
A. M. Bergevin & A. M. Bergevin & Co. v. Wood
105 P. 935 (California Court of Appeal, 1909)
Pacific Paving Co. v. Verso
105 P. 136 (California Court of Appeal, 1909)
In Re Estate of Sutro
92 P. 486 (California Supreme Court, 1907)
Commercial Bank of Santa Ana v. Wells
90 P. 981 (California Court of Appeal, 1907)
Wadleigh v. Phelps
81 P. 418 (California Supreme Court, 1905)
Carter v. Butte Creek Gold Mining & Power Co.
63 P. 667 (California Supreme Court, 1901)
Jarman v. Rea
61 P. 790 (California Supreme Court, 1900)
Hibernia Savings & Loan Society v. Freese
59 P. 769 (California Supreme Court, 1899)
Stackpole v. Hermann
58 P. 935 (California Supreme Court, 1899)
Creek v. Bozeman Water Works Co.
56 P. 362 (Montana Supreme Court, 1899)
In re Estate of Heydenfeldt
51 P. 543 (California Supreme Court, 1897)
Spreckels v. Spreckels
45 P. 1022 (California Supreme Court, 1896)
McCobmick v. Belvin
31 P. 16 (California Supreme Court, 1892)
Forni v. Yoell
30 P. 578 (California Supreme Court, 1892)
Schurtz v. Romer
22 P. 657 (California Supreme Court, 1889)