From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sherman v. Rolberg

Supreme Court of California
Jan 1, 1858
9 Cal. 17 (Cal. 1858)

Opinion

         Appeal from the County Court of Colusa County.

         COUNSEL:

         Where both parties appear on appeal in the County Court, no notice of appeal is necessary. (McLeran v. Shartzer , 5 Cal. 70.)

         Crocker, McKune & Robinson, for Appellant.

          L. Sanders, for Respondent.


         There is nothing to show that the County Court had jurisdiction of the appeal; for the reason that the statement of the case does not show that notice of appeal was served upon respondent appealing from the judgment alleged to have been rendered on the 4th day of July, 1857. The notice served did not state the amount of the judgment appealed from.

         This case differs from the case in the fifth volume of California Reports, relied on by appellants. In that case, the parties appeared to the action and argued a motion for a continuance. In this case, the respondent appeared specially as to the question of notice, and hence the County Court properly dismissed the appeal.

         The notice of a judgment rendered on the 4th day of July is no notice, because no Court can judicially sit on that day.

         JUDGES: Burnett, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Terry, C. J., concurring.

         OPINION

          BURNETT, Judge

         Action before Justice of the Peace. Judgment for the plaintiff. Appeal to the County Court, where the appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the Justice affirmed. Appeal by defendant to this Court.

         The judgment was rendered in the Justice's Court, on the 2d day of July, 1857. Notice of the appeal was handed to the Justice on the 6th of July, and on the same day notice of appeal was served on the attorney of plaintiff. This notice described the parties to the suit and the Justice before whom it was obtained, but stated that the appeal was taken from a judgment rendered on the 4th day of July. The notice given to the Justice described the judgment correctly. The Justice sent up a copy of his docket and the papers, except the notice. The appeal was taken on questions both of law and fact.

         When the case was called in the County Court, both parties appeared, and each asked liberty to make a motion. The plaintiff's counsel was allowed to make his motion first, and moved to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the Justice, for two reasons: first, there was no notice of appeal on file; second, there was no notice of appeal served on defendant.

         The mistake in the date of the judgment, as stated in the notice of appeal which was served on respondent, was not material. The notice was sufficient. It was the duty of the justice to send up the notice of appeal received by him. (Code, Sec. 627.) The County Court should have given the appellant the opportunity to move for an order compelling the Justice to send it up. (Sec. 627.)

         The order of the County Court dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment of the Justice is reversed, and that Court will proceed to try the case anew.


Summaries of

Sherman v. Rolberg

Supreme Court of California
Jan 1, 1858
9 Cal. 17 (Cal. 1858)
Case details for

Sherman v. Rolberg

Case Details

Full title:SHERMAN v. ROLBERG

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Jan 1, 1858

Citations

9 Cal. 17 (Cal. 1858)

Citing Cases

People ex rel. Waldon v. Elkins

         And if the County Court for such cause dismiss an appeal, its action is extra-judicial, and will be…

Judd v. Superior Court

It is a sufficient notice of appeal. "In Sherman v. Rolberg, 9 Cal. 17, the court had under consideration an…