Robinson v. Templar Lodge No. 17

California Supreme Court

Robinson v. Templar Lodge No. 17

45 P. 998, 114 Cal. 41, 1896 Cal. LEXIS 850

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 14, 1896

DocketS. F. No. 488

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 45 P. 998 (Robinson v. Templar Lodge No. 17) 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

Robinson v. Templar Lodge No. 17, 45 P. 998, 114 Cal. 41, 1896 Cal. LEXIS 850 (Cal. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

McFarland, J.

The motion of respondent to dismiss the appeal, notice of which was served and filed in the superior court on the fifth day of November, 1895, upon the ground that no undertaking on said appeal was ever filed, is granted, and said appeal is dismissed without prejudice to another appeal.

Respondent has also made a motion to dismiss the appeal, the notice of which appears on page 127 of the printed transcript, upon the grounds that the notice was served on December 31, 1895, and that neither the notice nor the undertaking was filed until January 6, 1896. These grounds are not tenable. The notice of appeal may be served before filing, and the code does not prescribe any particular time after service within which it must be filed (Noonan v. Nunan, 76 Cal. 44; [42]*42Galloway v. Rouse, 63 Cal. 280; Boyd v. Burrell, 60 Cal. 280; Code Civ. Proc., sec. 940); but the undertaking must be filed within five days after the service of the notice of appeal. In this cáse the service was on December 31, 1895; the fifth day of January, 1896, was Sunday, and thus appellant had until the 6th of January to file his undertaking. The said motion to dismiss said second appeal, the notice of which appears on page 127 of the transcript, is denied.

Henshaw, J., and Temple, J., concurred.

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

McFarland, J.

The motion of respondent to dismiss the appeal, notice of which was served and filed in the superior court on the fifth day of November, 1895, upon the ground that no undertaking on said appeal was ever filed, is granted, and said appeal is dismissed without prejudice to another appeal.

Respondent has also made a motion to dismiss the appeal, the notice of which appears on page 127 of the printed transcript, upon the grounds that the notice was served on December 31, 1895, and that neither the notice nor the undertaking was filed until January 6, 1896. These grounds are not tenable. The notice of appeal may be served before filing, and the code does not prescribe any particular time after service within which it must be filed (Noonan v. Nunan, 76 Cal. 44; [42]*42Galloway v. Rouse, 63 Cal. 280; Boyd v. Burrell, 60 Cal. 280; Code Civ. Proc., sec. 940); but the undertaking must be filed within five days after the service of the notice of appeal. In this cáse the service was on December 31, 1895; the fifth day of January, 1896, was Sunday, and thus appellant had until the 6th of January to file his undertaking. The said motion to dismiss said second appeal, the notice of which appears on page 127 of the transcript, is denied.

Henshaw, J., and Temple, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 P. 998, 114 Cal. 41, 1896 Cal. LEXIS 850, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-templar-lodge-no-17-cal-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack