Howard v. Harman
BLAKE E. HOWARD, and others v. M. M. HARMAN
- 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 only point raised on the part ol the appellants is, that the County Court had no jurisdiction, because there was no appeal bond, as re*79quired by the statute, to effect an appeal from Justices of the Peace to that Court.
This objection was not made in the Court below, and it comes here too late. If it had been made in proper time before the County Court, it would have been the duty of the presiding Judge to hear the excuse of the party failing to produce it, and if suEcient, to have allowed him then to have filed a bond, Judgment aErmed.
Cited by
- Nanny v. Ruby Lighting Corp. Civ. 14785 · 1952-01-29
- People Ex Rel. Thisby v. Reclamation District No. 556 Sac. No. 666. · 1900-12-07