Franklin v. Reiner
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District. Plaintiff, Franklin, laid this action for damages against the defendant, as sheriff, for" an alleged illegal seizure of his stock of goods. The case was tried, and judgment entered for defendant. Plaintiff moved for a new trial, which being denied, he appealed. The record does not in any manner disclose the existence of an appeal-bond, or show that the notice of appeal was served upon defendant, or his attorneys.
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
Motion to dismiss appeal.
In the case of Bryan v. Berry, July T., 1857, we decided that it must be shown, by the certificate of the clerk, that the undertaking on appeal was filed in due time. In this case there was nothing to show that the undertaking had been given.
*341Another objection urged is, that there was no proof of service of the notice of appeal. The object of the notice would be entirely defeated without service. The appellant should show due service of the notice. It is an affirmative matter, to be proven by him. The respondents could not be expected to prove a negative, that he never…
2Cited by14 opinions
- In re ClarkeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Hastings v. HalleckCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
- Paul v. ArmstrongNevada Supreme Court · 1865
- Adams v. McPhersonIdaho Supreme Court · 1893
- Reed v. AllisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.