Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

134 Cal. 459

66 P 594

Rose v. Mesmer

California Supreme Court

Decided November 5, 1901

California Supreme Court · decided 1901-11-05

MOTION to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Graves, O’Melveny & Shankland, for Andrew J. W. Keating, Appellant.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1901-11-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently March 1955

5 state decisions

30190119101920193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

HENSHAW, J.

¶1 — This is a motion to dismiss the attempted appeal of certain defendants in the above-entitled action, upon the ground that the undertaking upon appeal was not filed within the time required by section 940 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendants undertook to appeal from a judgment entered upon the sixth day of August, 1900, and served notice of appeal upon all the parties in interest on or before the eleventh day of August, 1900. The undertaking upon appeal was filed upon the seventeenth day of August, 1900. Section 940 of the Code of Civil Procedure declares that “ the appeal is ineffectual for any purpose unless within five days after service of the notice of an appeal an undertaking be filed.”

¶2 Under the foregoing statement of facts, it is apparent that the appeal must be dismissed, but as against the motion it is urged that one J. J. Chapman had been personally served with notice of appeal upon August 15th. While this appears to be true, it is also true that the said Chapman had appeared in the action by his attorneys, Dunnigan & Dunnigan, and service on the said Chapman had previously been made upon August 8th, through his attorneys, Dunnigan & Dunnigan. Chapman had never appeared in the action, excepting through his attorneys, Dunnigan & Dunnigan, and there is nothing in the record to show that they were not, upon August 8th, still his representatives and attorneys. Chapman having thus been served with notice on August 8th, the later service upon him, in person, upon August 15th, was a mere. nullity, and could not avail to postpone the time required by law for the filing of the undertaking on appeal.

¶3 The motion to dismiss is therefore granted.

¶4 Van Dyke, J., Harrison, J., McFarland, J., Garoutte, J., Temple, J., and Beatty, C. J., concurred.

/134/cal/459 · .json · Public domain