Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Hastings v. Halleck

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1858PublishedCited by 20 opinions

Motion, on the part of the Respondent, to dismiss the appeal.

1ConcurrenceTerry, C. J.

Motion to dismiss appeal. The notice of appeal was served June 11th, 1858, and the notice and undertaking filed June 28th.

To constitute an appeal there are three things necessary: first, filing the notice; second, service of the same; and third, filing the undertaking. All these steps must be taken within the times limited by the statute. ’ If not so taken, there is no appeal perfected, and this Court has no jurisdiction of the case. (Bryan v. Berry, 8 Cal. Rep., 133 ; Franklin v. Renier, 8 Cal. Rep., 340 ; Whipley v. Mills, 9 Cal. Rep., 641.)

The three hundred and thirty-seventh section of…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Franklin v. ReinerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1857
  2. Whipley v. MillsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Bonds v. HickmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
  2. Home & Loan Associates v. WilkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  3. Opening of Gold Street v. NewtonSupreme Court Of The Territory Of Dakota · 1878
  4. In re Estate of HeydenfeldtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  5. Courtright v. BerkinsMontana Supreme Court · 1876

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API