California Supreme Court, 1892

McCobmick v. Belvin

California Supreme Court · Decided September 9, 1892

96 Cal. 182; 31 P. 16; 1892 Cal. LEXIS 920

Cases that cite this one

17 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Albrexstondare (Cal. Ct. App. 1925)
Hernaiz Targa & Co. v. Vivas (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1914)
Hernaiz Targa & Co. v. Vivas (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1914)
In re Estate of Sutro (Cal. 1907)
Carter v. Butte Creek Gold Mining & Power Co. (Cal. 1901)
Creek v. Bozeman Water Works Co. (Mont. 1899)
Sellés v. Rodríguez (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1940)
Sellés v. Rodríguez (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1940)
De Choudens v. Postilla (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1938)
de Choudens ex rel. García v. Portilla (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1938)
Hastings v. Ganaderos Unidos de Puerto Rico, Inc. (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1934)
Hastings v. Ganaderos Unidos de Puerto Rico, Inc. (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1934)
Fajardo Development Co. v. Succession of Morfi (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1911)
Fajardo Development Co. v. Sucesión Morfi (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1911)
People v. Ryan (Cal. 1907)
Wadleigh v. Phelps (Cal. 1905)
People v. Van Ewan (Cal. 1896)

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

The Court.

— This is a motion by respondent to dis-

miss three appeals, upon the ground of want of undertaking on appeal.

The appellant, by one notice of appeal, gave notice *183that he appealed from the judgment entered in the case; from an order denying appellants’ motion to dismiss the action; and also from an order denying appellants’ motion to set aside the judgment by default. Only one undertaking on appeal was given, in the sum of three hundred dollars; and it did not refer separately to either of the appeals. “ The undertaking is no undertaking at all”; and there is no remedy under section 954 of the the Code of Civil Procedure. (Home and Loan Association v. Wilkins, 71 Cal. 626; Corcoran v. Desmond, 71 Cal. 100.) One of the orders, at least, was appealable, — the order denying the motion to set aside the default judgment.

The appeals are dismissed.

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