Howard v. Harman
This text of 5 Cal. 78 (Howard v. Harman) 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.
Opinion
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]*79quired 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
5 Cal. 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howard-v-harman-cal-1855.