Willow Land Co. v. Goldschmidt

California Court of Appeal

Willow Land Co. v. Goldschmidt

104 P. 841, 11 Cal. App. 297, 1909 Cal. App. LEXIS 157

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedSeptember 10, 1909

DocketCiv. No. 668.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 104 P. 841 (Willow Land Co. v. Goldschmidt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Willow Land Co. v. Goldschmidt, 104 P. 841, 11 Cal. App. 297, 1909 Cal. App. LEXIS 157 (Cal. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

SHAW, J.

This purports to be an appeal from an order made by the superior court of Orange county dismissing an appeal had and taken to that court from the justice’s court of Huntington Beach township.

The action as brought in the justice’s court appears to have been for the recovery of certain personal property of the alleged value of $144, and damages claimed for the detention thereof in the sum of $155.99.

The appeal must be dismissed upon several grounds-: 1. There is no authentication of the record by bill of exceptions or otherwise, in the absence of which the documents *298 and papers printed in the transcript constitute no record which can be reviewed by this court. 2. The appeal is- ineffectual by reason of the fact that neither the undertaking on appeal nor deposit prescribed by section 941, Code of Civil Procedure, has been given or made, nor was there any waiver thereof. 3. The amount involved being less than $300, this court has no jurisdiction thereof on appeal. (Const., art. VI, sec. 4.) 4. Other reasons.

The appeal is dismissed without the imposition of penalty.

Allen, P. J., and Taggart, J., concurred.

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

SHAW, J.

This purports to be an appeal from an order made by the superior court of Orange county dismissing an appeal had and taken to that court from the justice’s court of Huntington Beach township.

The action as brought in the justice’s court appears to have been for the recovery of certain personal property of the alleged value of $144, and damages claimed for the detention thereof in the sum of $155.99.

The appeal must be dismissed upon several grounds-: 1. There is no authentication of the record by bill of exceptions or otherwise, in the absence of which the documents *298 and papers printed in the transcript constitute no record which can be reviewed by this court. 2. The appeal is- ineffectual by reason of the fact that neither the undertaking on appeal nor deposit prescribed by section 941, Code of Civil Procedure, has been given or made, nor was there any waiver thereof. 3. The amount involved being less than $300, this court has no jurisdiction thereof on appeal. (Const., art. VI, sec. 4.) 4. Other reasons.

The appeal is dismissed without the imposition of penalty.

Allen, P. J., and Taggart, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 P. 841, 11 Cal. App. 297, 1909 Cal. App. LEXIS 157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willow-land-co-v-goldschmidt-calctapp-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack