Howard v. Harman

5 Cal. 78
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1855·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

Murray, C. J., concurred.

The only point raised on the part ol the appellants is, that the County Court had no jurisdiction, because there was no appeal bond, as re[79] quired by the statute, to effect an appeal from Justices of the Peace to that Court.

This objection was not made in the Court below, and it comes here too late. If it had been made in proper time before the County Court, it would have been the duty of the presiding Judge to hear the excuse of the party failing to produce it, and if suEcient, to have allowed him then to have filed a bond,

Judgment aErmed.

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

Howard v. Harman, 5 Cal. 78 (Cal. 1855).

5 Cal. 78 (Howard v. Harman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Nanny v. Ruby Lighting Corp.
239 P.2d 885 (California Court of Appeal, 1952)
People Ex Rel. Thisby v. Reclamation District No. 556
63 P. 87 (California Supreme Court, 1900)
Rudolph v. Herman
56 N.W. 122 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1893)
Towle v. Bradley
50 N.W. 1057 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1892)
Territory of Montana v. Milroy
7 Mont. 559 (Montana Supreme Court, 1888)