McCobmick v. Belvin
J. H. McCORMICK v. W. W. BELVIN
- Area
- civil
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
The Court.
— This is a motion by respondent to dis- miss three appeals, upon the ground of want of undertaking on appeal.
The appellant, by one notice of appeal, gave notice *183that he appealed from the judgment entered in the case; from an order denying appellants’ motion to dismiss the action; and also from an order denying appellants’ motion to set aside the judgment by default. Only one undertaking on appeal was given, in the sum of three hundred dollars; and it did not refer separately to either of the appeals. “ The undertaking is no undertaking at all”; and there is no remedy under section 954 of the the Code of Civil Procedure. (Home and Loan Association v. Wilkins, 71 Cal. 626; Corcoran v. Desmond, 71 Cal. 100.) One of the orders, at least, was appealable, — the order denying the motion to set aside the default judgment.
The appeals are dismissed.
Cites, in this corpus
- Home & Loan Associates v. Wilkins No. 11592 · 1887-01-31
- Corcoran v. Desmond No. 11060 · 1886-09-24
Cited by
- People v. Albrexstondare Docket No. 1126. · 1925-02-18
- People v. Ryan Crim. No. 1393. · 1907-11-29
- In Re Estate of Sutro S.F. No. 4768. · 1907-11-07
- Wadleigh v. Phelps Sac. No. 1316. · 1905-06-14
- Carter v. Butte Creek Gold Mining & Power Co. Sac. No. 787. · 1901-01-11
- In re Estate of Heydenfeldt S. F. No. 906 · 1897-12-17
- People v. Van Ewan Crim. No. 69 · 1896-01-28