Billings v. Roadhouse (1855) · DecisionDepot

Billings v. Roadhouse

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1855Published

Before: Heydenfeldt

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a minor defect in an appeal bond does not justify dismissal, and the lower court should have permitted the party to file a sufficient bond.

Issues

Whether a trifling defect in an appeal bond warrants dismissal of an appeal.
Whether the court should grant leave to file a new bond when a defect is identified.

Disposition. Reversed and remanded.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The defect pointed out is so trifling, that the obligation of the bond would not be affected by it.”

“Even if it were otherwise, the Court should have given the party leave to file a good bond.”

Synopsis

The omission of the words “ to pay to,” will not invalidate the obligation of an appeal bond.

Even were this not the case, where such an omission occurs leave should be granted to file a good bond.

Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Murray, C. J., concurred.

The County Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appeal bond was defective. The defect pointed out is so trifling, that the obligation of the bond would not be affected by it. Even if it were otherwise, the Court should have given the party leave to file a good bond.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Billings v. Roadhouse

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief