Bennett v. Bennett

California Supreme Court
Bennett v. Bennett, 42 Cal. 629 (Cal. 1872)
Rhodes

Bennett v. Bennett

Opinion of the Court

By the Court, Rhodes, J.:

Motion to dismiss the appeal, under Rule Four, upon a certificate of the Cleric.

The certificate is defective because it does not state whether a statement on appeal was filed.

It is also defective because it does not state the amount or character of the judgment. The copy of the undertaking on appeal specifies the amount, and in some respects the character of the judgment; but the recitals in the undertaking—which may or may not be true—will not be accepted as a substitute for statements which are required to be contained in the certificate.

If the copies of the notice of appeal and the undertaking on appeal could be taken in lieu of the Clerk’s certificate, *630they are still defective, as the undertaking does not recite the same judgment which is mentioned in the notice of appeal. The undertaking is, therefore, not in due form.

It is contemplated by Rule Four that the matters therein mentioned should be stated in the certificate of the Clerk; and not that they should be presented by means of documents on file in the Court below.

Motion denied.

Reference

Full Case Name
SUSAN BENNETT v. SANFORD BENNETT
Cited By
2 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
Clerk’s Certificate, on Motion to Dismiss Appeal.—It is contemplated by Rule Four of the Supreme Court that the matters therein mentioned should be stated in the certificate of the Clerk, and not that they should be presented by means of documents on file in the Court below. Defective Certificate.—A certificate is defective which does not state whether a statement on appeal was filed, or does not show the amount or character of the judgment. Recitals in the undertaking will not be accepted as a substitute for statements which are required to be contained in the certificate.