Bryan v. Berry
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, County of Solano. This was an action by the plaintiff, Bryan, against D. M. Berry, John H. Berry, and James H. Gordon, on a joint and several promissory note. Judgment was rendered there’on, on the tenth day of January, 1856, against all the defendants, jointly, for thirty-eight hundred dollars, and costs.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, County of Solano. This was an action by the plaintiff, Bryan, against D. M. Berry, John H. Berry, and James H. Gordon, on a joint and several promissory note. Judgment was rendered there’on, on the tenth day of January, 1856, against all the defendants, jointly, for thirty-eight hundred dollars, and costs. A notice of a motion for a new trial, on behalf of D. M. Berry, was given, on the twenty-sixth day of January, a. d. 1856, and sustained by the Court. The case was afterwards tried between the plaintiff and D. M. Berry, at the…
1Opinion of the CourtMurray, C. J.
This case was decided at the present term, not upon the merits, but upon the ground that there was no undertaking on *134peal. As no appeal ie effectual for any purpose without an undertaking, the appellant must show affirmatively that the undertaking required was given. In this case, the transcript did not show that such undertaking was filed, but upon an application for a re-hearing that fact is shown by the affidavit of the counsel of defendant, Berry, and by the certificate of the clerk, and that the undertaking, after having been filed, was lost. To'show that the undertaking is filed, the…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Stewart v. TaylorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- State v. California Mining Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1878
- Hynes v. BarnesMontana Supreme Court · 1904
- State Ex Rel. Coffey v. District CourtMontana Supreme Court · 1925
- City of San Francisco v. PixleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.