Williams v. Dennison
California Supreme Court
Motion to dismiss an appeal from the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco. The notice of appeal stated that the appeal was taken from the judgment,— describing it and giving its date,— and “also from the order overruling the motion for a new trial, and from each and every order and judgment made and entered in said cause,” and the undertaking on appeal recited the appeal as stated in the notice.
1Opinion of the CourtFox, J.
— The appeal in this case must be treated as an appeal from the judgment and order denying the motion for new trial. Under the notice, nothing will come under review on the hearing which would not be subject to review if the notice had omitted the words “ and from each and every order and judgment made and entered in said cause.”
Treating the appeal as being from the judgment and the order denying the motion for new trial only, as we think it must be treated, and the same not being separately taken, the undertaking is sufficient in form and in substance. ( Chester v. Bakersfield T. H. Ass’n,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Chester v. Bakersfield Town Hall Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
- Corcoran v. DesmondCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
3Cited by6 opinions
- Bowles v. Neely, MayorSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
- Bell v. StaackeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Woelflen v. Lewiston-Clarkston Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1908
- Granger v. RobinsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Wadleigh v. PhelpsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.