Stark v. Barrett
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Seventh District. The answer was a general denial, and an averrment that the land was public land, on which defendants had settled under the preemption laws of the United States. The facts of the case sufficiently appear in the opinion of the Court. Verdict for plaintiff for the whole premises, judgment accordingly, and defendants appeal.
1Opinion of the Court
Respondent moved, at the April term, to dismiss the appeal, on the ground stated in the following opinion of the Court, delivered by Field, C. J.
Baldwin, J. and Cope, J. concurring.
This is a motion to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that the sureties on the undertaking failed to justify, after notice of exception to their sufficiency. The attempted justification was made without notice to the adverse party, and cannot avail as an answer to the motion. The statute in terms requires the justification to be made upon such notice, and its object is to afford the adverse party an opportunity to…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Carver v. JacksonSupreme Court of the United States · 1830
- Yount v. HowellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
- Smith v. BensonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1837
- Ward v. WinshipMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1815
- Hope Mutual Life Insurance v. TaylorThe Superior Court of New York City · 1864
3Cited by37 opinions
- Tompkins v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
- Gates v. SalmonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
- Swartzbaugh v. SampsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
- Sullivan's Estate v. Commissioner of Internal Rev.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1949
- Touchard v. CrowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.