McLeran v. Shartzer
T. G. McLERAN v. HIRAM SHARTZER
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Solomon Heydenfeldt (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Heydenfeldt
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.
Cited by
- Estate of Pierce Civ. 6098 · 1938-07-28
- Walberg v. Underwood Civ. No. 2859. · 1919-02-15
- Shorr v. City of Azusa Civ. No. 1842. · 1918-11-21
- Bohn v. Bohn L.A. No. 2743. · 1913-01-18
- In Re Estate of Mayhew Civ. No. 233. · 1906-07-23
- Acock v. Halsey No. 14173 · 1891-07-16