Little v. Jacks
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Monterey County, and from an order refusing a new .trial. Motion to dismiss appeal on the ground that the undertaking thereon was filed before the service of the notice of appeal. Subsequent to the date of the attempted appeal, the parties entered into a written stipulation to advance the cause on the calendar of the Supreme Court for hearing. The further facts are stated in the opinion of the court of May 21, 1886.
1Opinion of the Court
The Court.
— The court is satisfied with its opinion as rendered on the point considered in it. It accords with several former decisions, and there is none contrary to it brought to our notice or of which we are aware.
But there is a point which the court wishes argued again, that is, whether respondent waived his right to. object to the irregularity in filing the undertaking on appeal before service of the notice of appeal by a stipulation in writing that the cause be placed on the calendar of this court for hearing for a day referred to in it, in the place of another case entitled Buclcnall…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hewes v. Carville Manufacturing Co.California Supreme Court · 1881
- Dooling v. MooreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
- Buckholder v. ByersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
3Cited by7 opinions
- Territory of Hawaii ex rel. Holloway v. CottonHawaii Supreme Court · 1906
- Mitchell v. Board of EducationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Mullins v. WebbOhio Court of Appeals · 1927
- American Surety Co. of New York v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
- Cornwell v. City of WatertownSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1924
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.