Jarman v. Rea
California Supreme Court
MOTION" to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County and from an order denying a new trial. A. S'. Kittredge, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. H. V. Morehouse, F. J. Hambly, D. W. Burchard, and E. M. Rea, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the CourtHarrison, J.
The respondent has moved to dismiss the appeal herein upon the ground that the undertaking on appeal provides only that the appellants will pay all damages and costs which may he awarded against them on the appeal, and does not contain the clause “or on a dismissal thereof,” which is re quired by section 941 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Before the hearing upon the motion the appellant presented a good and sufficient undertaking, which was approved by the chief justice and filed with the clerk of this court, and contends that for that reason the motion should be denied.
Although the right of…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Home & Loan Associates v. WilkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- Clarke v. MohrCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- In re Estate of HeydenfeldtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Spreckels v. SpreckelsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Howell v. HowellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Cohen v. ConnickCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1915
- Oliver Aresti v. SotoSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1940
- Lindy v. McChesneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Doran v. BirdIdaho Supreme Court · 1921
- Pacific Paving Co. v. VersoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1909
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.