TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ellis v. Hull

Ellis v. Hull, 23 Cal. 160 (1863)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1863
Judges
Crocker
Citations
23 Cal. 160
Syllabus
Where an appeal is taken to the Supreme Court from a judgment, by filing notice of appeal and undertaking, and the appeal is afterwards dismissed by the Supreme Court for failure of the appellant to send up a transcript, the sureties are liable on the undertaking on appeal.
Summary
Appeal from the Seventh Judicial District, Solano County. On the twenty-fourth day of December, 1861, judgment was rendered in the County Court of Solano County in favor of Ellis against Hull & Hull for three hundred and fifty-one dollars and fifty-three cents damages, and for one hundred and four dollars and fifty cents costs. On the twenty-third day of January, 1862, the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court, and the defendants W. Long and S. W. Long, as sureties, signed the undertaking on appeal. On the twelfth day of April, 1862, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, because the transcript had not been filed. This action was brought on the undertaking on appeal. The Court gave judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Crocker

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Crocker, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court—Norton, J. concurring.

This is an action upon an undertaking on appeal, and the only ground of error assigned is that no appeal had been taken, and therefore that the undertaking was without consideration. The evidence sustains the findings of the Court that an appeal had been taken, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court with costs, on the ground of the failure of the appellants to file the ■ transcript. The objection, therefore, is not well taken.

The judgment is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1865–1866: 11891–1892: 11923–1924: 118652026peak 1865 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Tackett v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.212 P. 357 (Kan. 1923)
  2. Chase v. Beraud29 Cal. 138 (1865)
  3. State v. Biesman29 P. 534 (Mont. 1892) · Dissent

Most recent

  1. Tackett v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.212 P. 357 (Kan. 1923)
  2. State v. Biesman29 P. 534 (Mont. 1892) · Dissent
  3. Chase v. Beraud29 Cal. 138 (1865)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list