Willow Land Co. v. Goldschmidt
WILLOW LAND COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, v. MAX GOLDSCHMIDT and M. KUJAWSKY, Respondents
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
SHAW, J.
This purports to be an appeal from an order made by the superior court of Orange county dismissing an appeal had and taken to that court from the justice’s court of Huntington Beach township.
The action as brought in the justice’s court appears to have been for the recovery of certain personal property of the alleged value of $144, and damages claimed for the detention thereof in the sum of $155.99.
The appeal must be dismissed upon several grounds-: 1. There is no authentication of the record by bill of exceptions or otherwise, in the absence of which the documents *298 and papers printed in the transcript constitute no record which can be reviewed by this court. 2. The appeal is- ineffectual by reason of the fact that neither the undertaking on appeal nor deposit prescribed by section 941, Code of Civil Procedure, has been given or made, nor was there any waiver thereof. 3. The amount involved being less than $300, this court has no jurisdiction thereof on appeal. (Const., art. VI, sec. 4.) 4. Other reasons.
The appeal is dismissed without the imposition of penalty.
Allen, P. J., and Taggart, J., concurred.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.