From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rhoads v. Gray

Supreme Court of California
May 13, 1897
5 Cal. Unrep. 664 (Cal. 1897)

Opinion

          Department 1. Appeal from superior court, King county; Justin Jacobs, Judge.

          Action by one Rhoads and others against one Gray and others. From a judgment in favor of defendants, and from an order denying a new trial, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.          COUNSEL

          Horace L. Smith, for appellants.

          J. A. Hannah and M. L. Short, for respondents.


          OPINION

          PER CURIAM

         At the hearing of this cause the appeal from the order denying a new trial was dismissed for want of an undertaking upon such appeal, the $300 undertaking for costs which was filed herein reciting only that it was in consideration of the appeal from the judgment. Duncan v. Times-Mirror Co., 109 Cal. 602, 42 P. 147. The only [5 Cal.Unrep. 665] ground urged by the appellants in support of the appeal from the judgment is that the evidence was insufficient to sustain certain findings of fact; but, as the appeal was taken more than 60 days after the rendition of the judgment, we are precluded from the examination of that question. Code Civ. Proc. § 939. The judgment appealed from was rendered February 14, 1896, and the appeal therefrom was taken November 5, 1896. The judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

Rhoads v. Gray

Supreme Court of California
May 13, 1897
5 Cal. Unrep. 664 (Cal. 1897)
Case details for

Rhoads v. Gray

Case Details

Full title:RHOADS et al. v. GRAY et al.

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: May 13, 1897

Citations

5 Cal. Unrep. 664 (Cal. 1897)
5 Cal. Unrep. 664

Citing Cases

Reilly v. Wright

          VAN FLEET, Judge           [48 P. 971] Appeal by defendants Wright and Johnson from a…

People v. Belardes

Without analyzing the evidence in its details, it is sufficient to say that the bill of exceptions shows that…