White v. Stevenson

California Supreme Court

White v. Stevenson

73 P. 421, 139 Cal. 531, 1903 Cal. LEXIS 856

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 9, 1903

DocketL.A. No. 1245.

StatusPublished

This text of 73 P. 421 (White v. Stevenson) 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

White v. Stevenson, 73 P. 421, 139 Cal. 531, 1903 Cal. LEXIS 856 (Cal. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

*532 VAN DYKE, J.

The respondent moves to dismiss the appeals of the plaintiff herein, on the ground that the only undertaking filed is conditioned for the payment of all damages that may be awarded against the appellant on the appeals or on a dismissal thereof. But the undertaking referred to recites that whereas the plaintiff has appealed to the supreme court from a judgment rendered and entered in said action on the fourteenth day of December, 1901, and also from the order denying said plaintiffs a new trial of said action, made and entered on the thirty-first day of January, 1902, “Now, therefore, in consideration of the premises and of such appeals, we, the undersigned, ... do hereby jointly and severally undertake and promise, ’ ’ etc.

In case of an appeal from the judgment, and also from the order denying a motion for a new trial, where both of the appeals are referred to in the undertaking and made the consideration for its execution, a single undertaking for three hundred dollars will be sufficient. This is an exception to the general rule requiring a separate undertaking for each appeal; but this practice has been long in force, and has become well settled. (Chester v. Bakersfield T. H. Assn., 64 Cal. 42; Sharon v. Sharon, 68 Cal. 333; Williams v. Dennison, 86 Cal. 430; Granger v. Robinson, 114 Cal. 631; Bell v. Staacke, 137 Cal. 307.)

The motion to dismiss the appeals is denied.

Beatty, C. J., Lorigan, J., Shaw, J., and Angellotti, J., concurred.

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

*532 VAN DYKE, J.

The respondent moves to dismiss the appeals of the plaintiff herein, on the ground that the only undertaking filed is conditioned for the payment of all damages that may be awarded against the appellant on the appeals or on a dismissal thereof. But the undertaking referred to recites that whereas the plaintiff has appealed to the supreme court from a judgment rendered and entered in said action on the fourteenth day of December, 1901, and also from the order denying said plaintiffs a new trial of said action, made and entered on the thirty-first day of January, 1902, “Now, therefore, in consideration of the premises and of such appeals, we, the undersigned, ... do hereby jointly and severally undertake and promise, ’ ’ etc.

In case of an appeal from the judgment, and also from the order denying a motion for a new trial, where both of the appeals are referred to in the undertaking and made the consideration for its execution, a single undertaking for three hundred dollars will be sufficient. This is an exception to the general rule requiring a separate undertaking for each appeal; but this practice has been long in force, and has become well settled. (Chester v. Bakersfield T. H. Assn., 64 Cal. 42; Sharon v. Sharon, 68 Cal. 333; Williams v. Dennison, 86 Cal. 430; Granger v. Robinson, 114 Cal. 631; Bell v. Staacke, 137 Cal. 307.)

The motion to dismiss the appeals is denied.

Beatty, C. J., Lorigan, J., Shaw, J., and Angellotti, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 P. 421, 139 Cal. 531, 1903 Cal. LEXIS 856, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-stevenson-cal-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack