92 CAL 563 - Matthews v. Jones

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently October 1999

11 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.

Vanclief, C.

¶1The action is ejectment for the recovery of 320 acres of land situate in the county of San Benito. The case was tried by a jury; verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendants bring this appeal from the judgment upon the judgment roll, in which there is no bill of exceptions.

¶2There was a general demurrer to the complaint, which was properly overruled by the court, and no specific objection to the complaint is made here.

¶3 *564What purport to be instructions of the court to the jury are printed in the transcript, and appellants contend that some of them are erroneous. As they constitute no part of the judgment roll, they were improperly included in the transcript, and cannot be considered.

¶4As it appears that the appeal is without merit or plausible excuse, and was evidently taken for delay alonej I think the judgment should be affirmed.

¶5Foote, C., and Fitzgerald, C., concurred.

The Court.

¶6For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment is affirmed, with two hundred dollars damages.