Abrahms v. Stokes

Decided July 1, 1870

California Supreme Court · decided 1870-07-01

Appeal from the County Court of Trinity County. This is an appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Trinity County, for the restitution o'f certain premises in the town of Weaverville, Trinity County, and for damages, rendered the 17th day of July, 1868. On the 3d day of July, 1869, the defendant, Stokes, filed in the clerk’s office of said Court, a notice of appeal from said judgment, and on the 19th day of July, the following affidavit of the service of said notice : State of California, ) sg County of Trinity, j I, Charles Twambly, Toeing duly sworn, say, that Richard Stokes, the defendant in the action of I. Abrahms, surviving partner of the firm of I. Karsky & Co. vs. Richard Stokes, personally served a copy of notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of this State, on said Isaac Abrahms, July 6th, A. D. 1869, from a judgment rendered in the County Court July 17th, A. D. 1868, by default, against said Richard Stokes for restitution of property, etc. C. W. Twambly. The plaintiff was represented, in the County Court, by his attorney.

Relies on Grant v. White

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1870-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently April 1934

2 state decisions

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 →

Rhodes, C. J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court:

¶2It is provided by Section 337 of the Code, that the notice of appeal shall be served upon the adverse party or his attorney; but that section does not prescribe when the service must be made upon the adverse party, nor when upon his attorney. Section 524 provides, that “ in all cases when a party has an attorney in the action or proceeding, the service of papers, when required, shall be upon the attorney, instead of the party, except of subpoenas,” etc. This provision controls the general provision of Section'337, and requires the service of the notice of appeal to be made upon the attorney of the adverse party, when such party has an attorney. (Grant v. White, 6 Cal. 55.)

¶3Appeal dismissed.

¶4Sprague, J., expressed no opinion.