Bellegarde v. San Francisco Bridge Co.

California Supreme Court
Bellegarde v. San Francisco Bridge Co., 80 Cal. 61 (Cal. 1889)
22 P. 57; 1889 Cal. LEXIS 858
McFarland

Bellegarde v. San Francisco Bridge Co.

Opinion of the Court

McFarland, J.

This cause is before us upon a motion of respondent to dismiss the appeal from the judgment for failure to file the transcript within the time prescribed by rule 2 of this court.

But the certificate of the clerk shows that no appeal has ever been taken,—the notice of appeal having been given January 7, 1889, and no undertaking on appeal having been filed until January 28, 1889. In such a case the rule heretofore seems to have been to refuse to *62hear the party who claims to have appealed, and to refuse to “ dismiss,”—there being, really, nothing to dismiss. (Biagi v. Howes, 63 Cal. 384; Reed v. Kimball, 52 Cal. 325.)

The motion to dismiss is denied.

Sharpstein, J., Paterson, J., Works, J., and Beatty, C. J., concurred.

Rehearing denied.

Reference

Full Case Name
J. B. BELLEGARDE v. SAN FRANCISCO BRIDGE COMPANY
Cited By
1 case
Status
Published
Syllabus
Appeal—Failure to File Undertaking in Time—Dismissal. —The failure to file an undertaking on appeal within the time limited therefor renders the attempted appeal ineffectual. In such a case, the respondent cannot have the attempted appeal dismissed.