Opinion
Appeal from the County Court of Yuba County.
COUNSEL:
The County Court had no jurisdiction of the case.
1. Because there was no undertaking on appeal filed, as is provided by statute. See Comp. Laws Cal. p. 632, § 628; Const. Art. VI. § 9; Latham v. Edgerton, 9 Cowen, 228; Ford v. The Commonwealth, 3 Dana, 46. Unless this was complied with, the proceeding would be coram non judice, and void. 1 Cal. 397.
2. This objection to the jurisdiction is properly taken; such an objection can be taken at any time and at any stage of the proceedings. Comp. Laws, p. 526, § 45. Stoughton v. Mott, 13 Verm. 181. Latham v. Edgerton, supra. Borden v. Fitch, 15 Johns. 141. Mills v. Martin, 19 Ibid. 33.
R. S. Mesick, for Appellants.
W. L. Willis, for Respondent.
There is no statement or bill of exceptions which shows any other state of facts, except as is set forth in the judgment of the County Court. It is a well established rule, that this Court will not disturb a judgment of an inferior Court, unless the defects appear in the record, or areapparent from a bill of exceptions. 1 Cal. 108. 2 Ibid. 99, 145.
JUDGES: Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Murray, C. J., concurred.
OPINION
HEYDENFELDT, Judge
The only point raised on the part of the appellants is, that the County Court had no jurisdiction, because there was no appeal bond, as required by the statute, to effect an appeal from Justices of the Peace to that Court.
This objection was not made in the Court below, and it comes here too late. If it had been made in proper time before the County Court, it would have been the duty of the presiding Judge to hear the excuse of the party failing to produce it, and if sufficient, to have allowed him then to have filed a bond.
See Billings v. Roadhouse, ante, 71 and note.