Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

86 Cal. 430

Williams v. Dennison

California Supreme Court

Decided November 25, 1890

California Supreme Court · decided 1890-11-25

Motion to dismiss an appeal from the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco. The notice of appeal stated that the appeal was taken from the judgment,— describing it and giving its date,— and “also from the order overruling the motion for a new trial, and from each and every order and judgment made and entered in said cause,” and the undertaking on appeal recited the appeal as stated in the notice.

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently April 1908

5 state decisions

Relies on Corcoran v. Desmond

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1890-11-25

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Fox, J.

¶1— The appeal in this case must be treated as an appeal from the judgment and order denying the motion for new trial. Under the notice, nothing will come under review on the hearing which would not be subject to review if the notice had omitted the words “ and from each and every order and judgment made and entered in said cause.”

¶2Treating the appeal as being from the judgment and the order denying the motion for new trial only, as we think it must be treated, and the same not being separately taken, the undertaking is sufficient in form and in substance. ( Chester v. Bakersfield T. H. Ass’n, 64 Cal. *43142; Corcoran v. Desmond, 71 Cal. 102, 103.) The other cases cited in support of the motion to dismiss the appeal are not in point.

¶3Motion to dismiss the appeal denied.

¶4Sharpstein, J., McFarland, J., Paterson, J., and Thornton, J., concurred.

/86/cal/430 · .json · Public domain