Roush v. Van Hagen
Before: Baldwin
Synopsis
Under the three hundred and fifty-fifth section of the Practice Act, where respondent excepts to the sureties on the undertaking on appeal, the sureties must justify before a County Judge of the county where the suit is pending, where that officer is selected; and where such justification was before the County Judge of another county, where the sureties resided, the appeal will be dismissed.
Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court Cope, J. concurring.
The appeal must be dismissed. The true construction is that the sureties must justify before a County Judge—when that is the officer selected—of the county in which the suit is. Any other construction, if. it did not render the main provisions of the statute practically inoperative, would lead to very onerous and embarrassing results. We think the natural construction of the language of the three hundred and fifty-fifth section of the Practice Act leads to this conclusion.
Ordered accordingly.
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)