Columbet v. Pacheco
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Twentieth Judicial District, County of Santa Clara. The plaintiff had judgment in ejectment; the defendant moved for a new trial- and the motion was denied.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Twentieth Judicial District, County of Santa Clara. The plaintiff had judgment in ejectment; the defendant moved for a new trial- and the motion was denied. February 1st, 1873, the defendant filed a notice of appeal and undertaking on appeal, but did not serve the notice until February 3d, 1873. After filing the transcript and an opening brief, the defendants, on March 5th, 1873, took an appeal from the same judgment and order, filing their notice and undertaking and serving the notice on the same day.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court:
The motion to dismiss the appeal taken on March 5th, 1873, must be denied. The attempted appeal of February, 1873, was ineffectual, because, though the notice of appeal and undertaking on appeal were filed on the same day, the *651notice of appeal was not served until two days thereafter. We think that under section nine hundred and forty, Code of Civil Procedure, the filing of notice of appeal, filing the undertaking, and service of the notice, must be effected “ at the same time ”—that is to say, - on the same day-—for we will not regard fractions of a single day for this purpose.…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Douglass v. ThompsonNevada Supreme Court · 1912
- Isenhoot v. ChamberlainCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
- Vordermark v. WilkinsonIndiana Supreme Court · 1897
- Dinan v. StewartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874
- Harlan v. PrattCalifornia Supreme Court · 1875