Howard v. Harman
Before: Heydenfeldt
Synopsis
An objection that a County Court has no jurisdiction in cases on appeal, where no appeal bond is given as required by the statute, should be made in the Court below. It is too late to raise the question here.
Where such an objection is made within the proper time, it is the duty of the presiding Judge to hear the excuse of the party failing to produce it, and if sufficient, to allow him to file a bond,
Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Murray, C. J., concurred.
The only point raised on the part ol the appellants is, that the County Court had no jurisdiction, because there was no appeal bond, as re[79]quired by the statute, to effect an appeal from Justices of the Peace to that Court.
This objection was not made in the Court below, and it comes here too late. If it had been made in proper time before the County Court, it would have been the duty of the presiding Judge to hear the excuse of the party failing to produce it, and if suEcient, to have allowed him then to have filed a bond,
Judgment aErmed.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)