California Supreme Court, 1889

Bellegarde v. San Francisco Bridge Co.

California Supreme Court · Decided August 1, 1889 · McFarland

80 Cal. 61; 22 P. 57; 1889 Cal. LEXIS 858

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Curtin v. Salomon (Cal. Ct. App. 1926)

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

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.