McLeran v. Shartzer

5 Cal. 70
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1855
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 5 Cal. 70 (McLeran v. Shartzer) 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.

Bluebook
McLeran v. Shartzer, 5 Cal. 70 (Cal. 1855).

Opinion

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

Murray, C. J., concurred.

The case was in the County Court on appeal. There, both parties appeared, and argued a motion for continuance, which was granted. At the next term, the parties again appear, when the respondent objecting that the notice of appeal was insufficient, moved to dismiss the appeal, which was done.

It is unnecessary to decide whether the notice of appeal was in conformity with the statute. We have often determined, that where the object of notice was accomplished, it is immaterial whether there was notice or not. Where both parties appear, no notice whatever is necessary to be shown.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

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

Related

Estate of Pierce
81 P.2d 1037 (California Court of Appeal, 1938)
Walberg v. Underwood
180 P. 55 (California Court of Appeal, 1919)
Shorr v. City of Azusa
177 P. 513 (California Court of Appeal, 1918)
Bohn v. Bohn
129 P. 981 (California Supreme Court, 1913)
In Re Estate of Mayhew
87 P. 417 (California Court of Appeal, 1906)
Acock v. Halsey
27 P. 193 (California Supreme Court, 1891)
Payne v. Davis
2 Mont. 381 (Montana Supreme Court, 1876)
Killip v. Empire Mill Co.
2 Nev. 34 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1866)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 Cal. 70, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcleran-v-shartzer-cal-1855.