Willow Land Co. v. Goldschmidt

104 P. 841, 11 Cal. App. 297, 1909 Cal. App. LEXIS 157
California Court of Appeal·Decided September 10, 1909·No. Civ. No. 668.·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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

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

104 P. 841 (Willow Land Co. v. Goldschmidt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State ex rel. Cook v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland
112 S.E. 319 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1922)
Couldthirst v. Southern Pacific Railroad
193 P. 796 (California Court of Appeal, 1920)
Lincoln County Bank v. Fetterman
149 P. 811 (California Supreme Court, 1915)
Cook v. Suburban Realty Co.
129 P. 801 (California Court of Appeal, 1912)