Legal Opinion
Cunningham v. Warnekey
California Supreme Court
Decided October 9, 1882No. 8,039PublishedCited by 13 opinions
Appeal by defendant from the judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Sonoma. Pressley, J. Action for the abatement of nuisance in a public highway. The plaintiff had judgment in the Court below and moved in this Court to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that it did not appear that the notice of appeal had ever been served. The other facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
1Opinion of the Court
The Court:
The affidavit of service of notice of appeal is as follows:
“ Daniel Brennan being duly sworn deposes and says: I am, and was at the time of service by mailage of the within copy notice of appeal, a white male citizen over the age of eighteen years, and competent to bé a witness in this action; that on the fifteenth day of August, 1881,1 se.rved the within copy notice of appeal by mailage on A. B. Ware, Esq., attorney for plaintiff, by leaving in the United States Postoffice in the city of Santa Rosa, county of Sonoma, and State of California, a copy of the within notice of appeal,…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Santana v. SalinasSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1939
- Hogs Back Consolidated Mining Co. v. New Basil Consolidated Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1883
- Linforth v. WhiteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Carlon v. GrayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
- Gascón v. AlvarezSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1920
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.