Lane v. Superior Court
Before: Taggart
Synopsis
Appeal from Justice’s .Court—Effect op Failure op Sureties to Justify.—Upon an attempted appeal from the justice’s court, where the sureties fail to justify when required to do so, the appeal must be regarded as if no undertaking had been given, and the cause remains in the justice’s court until a new undertaking is filed or until the sureties justify.
Id.—Absence op Jurisdiction op Appeal—Prohibition.—In such case where the justification of the sureties was abandoned, and an undertaking was filed more than thirty days after the rendition of the judgment, the appeal is ineffectual, and the superior court has no jurisdiction thereof; and prohibition will lie to prevent the superior court from trying the case.
TAGGART, J.
Application for writ of prohibition.
One David Bonham commenced an action in the justice’s court of Lucerne township, Kings county, against petitioner
[763]
to recover $200 as money had and received. Judgment was for defendant (petitioner here) for costs, and plaintiff appealed.
The judgment was rendered April 25, 1907, and on May 23, 1907, plaintiff served defendant with a notice of appeal to.the superior court from said judgment. The same day he filed an undertaking on appeal reciting that his appeal was “from a judgment entered against him, in said action, in the said
Superior
Court,” etc., and obligating the sureties in the sum of $300, instead of $100. On May 24th, the justice of the peace certified the records and papers in the case and filed them in the superior court. Defendant gave notice of exception to the sufficiency of the undertaking and of the sureties thereon on May 27, 1907, and on May 29th notice of intention of sureties to justify was served on defendant without time being fixed in the notice; after oral notice of the time and an adjournment of the hearing to May 31st, counsel for plaintiff in open court, on that date, stated that one of the sureties on the undertaking could not justify, and the court adjourned without any justification of any surety on that or any other undertaking.
Thereafter, on said thirty-first day of May, 1907, the plaintiff filed in the office of the clerk of the superior court an undertaking entitled: “In the Justice’s Court of Lucerne Township, County of Kings, State of California,” and in the cause mentioned, reciting that he has appealed “from a judgment made and entered against him in said action in the said
Superior
Court, in favor of the plaintiff” (himself), etc.
Notice of the filing of this bond as a new undertaking, and of the intention of the sureties thereon to justify before the superior court on June 1, 1907, was given to defendant the same day, and the latter appeared by counsel in the superior court at the time named in the notice and objected to the filing of a
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)