Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

52 Cal. 325

Reed v. Kimball

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1877

California Supreme Court · decided 1877-07-01

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the Twenty-second Judicial District, County of Mendocino.</p> <p>J udgment for the plaintiff for $908.57. The defendant undertook to appeal. The other facts are stated in the opinion.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1877-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently July 1905

5 state decisions

301877188018901900decided

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 →

By the Court :

¶1The respondent moves that the appeal be dismissed, because of the failure of the appellant to file the transcript within the time prescribed by the rules of this Court.

¶2*326It appears by the certificate of the Clerk of the Court in which the judgment was rendered, that on the 22nd day of March last a notice of appeal was served upon the attorney for the respondent, and that on the 5th day of April next thereafter an undertaking on appeal was filed in the Clerk’s office. The Code of Civil Procedure (sec. 940) provides that “ the appeal is ineffectual for any purpose, unless within five days after service of the notice of appeal an undertaking is filed,” etc.

¶3More than five days having intervened in this case between the service of the notice and the filing of the undertaking, the appeal utterly failed—became “ ineffectual for any purpose"— and is not the subject of a motion to dismiss.

¶4For the reason, then, that no appeal appears to be pending, the motion is denied.

/52/cal/325 · .json · Public domain