gno.law

Bornheimer v. Baldwin

California Supreme Court · · 1869-07-01 · Published · 38 Cal. 671

FRANCIS BORNHEIMER v. ELIAS J. BALDWIN

Proceeding
appeal
Outcome
other — Sprague, J,, expressed no opinion.
Area
civil
Panel
Richard W. Rhodes (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 — Rhodes

Rhodes, J., delivered the opinion of the Court:

The appeal from the judgment was not taken within one year after the rendition of the judgment, and must, therefore, be dismissed.

The respondent also moves to dismiss the appeal from the order refusing a new trial, on the ground that no undertaking on appeal from that order was given. No offer was made by the appellants to file an undertaking on appeal according to the provisions of Section 3 of the Act of 1861. (Stats. 1861, p. 589.) The undertaking recites the appeal from the judgment, but no mention is therein made of the appeal from the order. It does not secure the payment of the damages and costs which may be awarded against the appellants on the appeal from the order, but only on the appeal from the judgment. There is, therefore, no undertaking on the appeal from the order.

Appeal from the judgment, and the order refusing a new trial, dismissed.

Sprague, J,, expressed no opinion.

Cited by