Legal Opinion
Howard v. Harman
California Supreme Court
Decided July 1, 1855PublishedCited by 5 opinions
Appeal from the County Court of Yuba County. The facts of the case appear in the opinion of the Court.
1Opinion of the CourtHeydenfeldt, J.
Murray, C. J., concurred.
The only point raised on the part ol the appellants is, that the County Court had no jurisdiction, because there was no appeal bond, as re*79quired by the statute, to effect an appeal from Justices of the Peace to that Court.
This objection was not made in the Court below, and it comes here too late. If it had been made in proper time before the County Court, it would have been the duty of the presiding Judge to hear the excuse of the party failing to produce it, and if suEcient, to have allowed him then to have filed a bond,
Judgment aErmed.
2Cited by5 opinions
- Nanny v. Ruby Lighting Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1952
- Towle v. BradleySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1892
- Rudolph v. HermanSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1893
- Territory of Montana v. MilroyMontana Supreme Court · 1888
- People Ex Rel. Thisby v. Reclamation District No. 556California Supreme Court · 1900