Home & Loan Associates v. Wilkins
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision.
- Commercial Bank of Santa Ana v. Wells (Cal. Ct. App. 1907)
- Watson v. Pryor (Cal. Ct. App. 1920)
- Theisen v. Matthai (Cal. 1913)
- Pacific Paving Co. v. Verso (Cal. Ct. App. 1909)
- A. M. Bergevin & A. M. Bergevin & Co. v. Wood (Cal. Ct. App. 1909)
- In re Estate of Sutro (Cal. 1907)
- Wadleigh v. Phelps (Cal. 1905)
- Creek v. Bozeman Water Works Co. (Mont. 1899)
- Carter v. Butte Creek Gold Mining & Power Co. (Cal. 1901)
- Stackpole v. Hermann (Cal. 1899)
- Hibernia Savings & Loan Society v. Freese (Cal. 1899)
- Spreckels v. Spreckels (Cal. 1896)
- Forni v. Yoell (Cal. 1892)
- McCobmick v. Belvin (Cal. 1892)
- Schurtz v. Romer (Cal. 1889)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Motion to dismiss appeals.
In this case appellant took appeals from, two orders, and filed one undertaking on appeal not distinctly referring to either appeal. The language used in the undertaking filed recites only - one appeal without distinguishing which of the two appeals was referred to. The undertaking so filed is no undertaking at all. It is so ambiguous that it must be regarded as if none had been filed. (People v. Center, 61 Cal. 191; Corcoran v. Desmond, ante, p. 100.)
An application is made to this court by appellant to be allowed to file the proper undertakings under section 954, Code of Civil Procedure. The section referred to does not authorize it. It only authorizes a new undertaking when the one filed is insufficient. But in this
Application to file other undertakings denied, and the appeals dismissed.
McFarland, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.
Hearing in Bank denied.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.