Pacific Window Glass Co. v. Smith

California Court of Appeal Sep 9, 1908 No. Civ. No. 506.Published

Before: Hart

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a deposit of money with a justice of the peace, even if exceeding the amount required for costs, should be construed as intended to perfect an appeal, thereby granting the superior court jurisdiction. The court annulled the dismissal of the appeal, favoring the resolution of cases on their merits over strict procedural technicalities.

Issues

Whether a deposit of money with a justice of the peace, equal to the judgment amount, satisfies the requirement for an undertaking to perfect an appeal.
Whether an appeal should be dismissed when the purpose of a deposit is ambiguous but sufficient to cover appeal costs.

Disposition. annulled

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We think the deposit, under all the circumstances, is to be, and should be, construed as having been made for the purpose of the payment of the costs on the appeal.”

“The fact that the amount deposited exceeds that required by the statute to make the appeal effectual cannot, of course, vitiate the appeal.”

“The conclusion we have reached responds to the spirit and corresponds with the trend of modem decisions on points of practice in general, which is that causes should be permitted to be heard on their merits”

Synopsis

PETITION for writ of review to annul a judgment of the Superior Court of-San Joaquin County dismissing an appeal from the justice’s court of O’Neal township. Prank H. Smith, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

HART,

Certiorari. The petitioners charge that the respondents acted in excess of their jurisdiction in the dismissal of an appeal from the justice’s court of O’Neal township, county of San Joaquin, in a certain action wherein one W. J. Herson was plaintiff and the petitioners were defend

[764]

ants, and in which judgment was rendered and entered in favor of the plaintiff in said action against the petitioners.

The ground upon which the appeal was dismissed in said action was that “no undertaking on appeal for the sum of $100 for the payment of the costs on the appeal” had been Bled by the defendants in said action (petitioners here), as required by the provisions of section 978 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

According to the uncontroverted averments of the petition, a judgment was rendered by the justice’s court of O’Neal township on the second day of April, 1908, in favor of said W. J. Herson and against the petitioners for the sum of $177.30, of which the sum of $25.16 was for attorneys’ fees and $26.34 for- costs. - On April 7, 1908, the petitioners, as defendants in said action, filed with said justice’s court a notice of appeal from said judgment on questions of both law and fact, and served a copy thereof on the adverse party, and on the following day—April 8th—“made a deposit of the amount of said judgment, including all costs, appealed from, with said justice,” in the sum of $177.30. Thereupon said justice transmitted to the clerk of the respondent, said superior court, a certified copy of his docket, the pleadings, all notices, motions and all other papers filed in the cause, and the notice of appeal, and also transmitted and turned over to the clerk of said superior court the sum of $177.30, deposited with said justice as aforesaid, the same to be subject to any order of said superior court in the premises. Thereupon, the petitioners caused said appeal to be placed on the May 4, 1908, trial calendar of said superior court, no objection thereto having been interposed by the plaintiff in said action. On May 15, 1908, the said plaintiff filed and served notice on petitioners that he would, on Monday, May 25, 1908, move to dismiss the appeal upon the ground already stated. Said motion was heard, with the result as stated.

Pacific Window Glass Co. v. Smith

AI Brief

Synopsis

HART,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief