From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Blair v. Brownstone Oil and Refining Company

Court of Appeal of California, Second District
Apr 7, 1913
21 Cal.App. 676 (Cal. Ct. App. 1913)

Opinion

Civ. No. 1321.

April 7, 1913.

MOTION to dismiss appeal from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Gavin W. Craig, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

William H. Fuller, and Chas. E. Putnam, for Appellant.

Leonard B. Slosson, and George E. Farrand, for Respondents.


Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order denying a new trial. The record shows that notice of appeal from the judgment and from an order denying a new trial was duly given; that within a day or two succeeding an undertaking on appeal from the judgment was filed. Respondents contend that the appeal from the order should be dismissed because the same was not included in the undertaking given. Upon the authority of Mitchell v. California etc. Steamship Co., 154 Cal. 731, [ 99 P. 202], the motion must be denied. It is there held that the notice of appeal is sufficient regardless of the filing of the undertaking.

Motion denied.


Summaries of

Blair v. Brownstone Oil and Refining Company

Court of Appeal of California, Second District
Apr 7, 1913
21 Cal.App. 676 (Cal. Ct. App. 1913)
Case details for

Blair v. Brownstone Oil and Refining Company

Case Details

Full title:CHAS. H. BLAIR, Appellant, v. BROWNSTONE OIL AND REFINING COMPANY (a…

Court:Court of Appeal of California, Second District

Date published: Apr 7, 1913

Citations

21 Cal.App. 676 (Cal. Ct. App. 1913)
132 P. 605