Case ID: utah_3/html/0230-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MOUNT v. SIMONS et al.
    An Appeal prom a Judgment must be taken within one year from the time, of the rendering of the judgment.
    An Appeal ep.om an Order Denying a New Trial may be taken, although the time for appealing from the judgment has expired.
    Under Section 345 _oe the Civil Practice Act, One Notice and One Undertaking on Appeal only are required upon an appeal from a judgment, and from an order denying a new trial.
    Appeal from the third district court. Plaintiff had judgment May 19, 1881. The order denying a new trial was entered May 31,1882. The defendants appealed. The notice of appeal was as follows: “The defendants’ * * * hereby appeal to the supreme court for the territory of Utah from the judgment therein made and entered * * * against the said defendants. Said defendants also hereby appeal from the order made and entered * * * on the thirty-first day of May, 1882, wherein the motion of said defendants for a new trial was by said court overruled and denied, said appeal being from the whole of said judgment and order aforesaid.” The notice was filed and served July 13, 1882.
    On July 14, 1882, the following undertaking was filed: “ Whereas * * * defendants in the above-entitled action have appealed * * ■* from a judgment made and entered ag'ainst said defendants,' * * * and said defendants having also appealed from an order made and entered in said action * * * on the thirty-first day of May, 1882, wherein the motion of "said 'defendants for a new trial was overruled and a new trial denied. Now, therefore, in consideration of the premises and of such appeal, we the undersigned * * * do jointly and severally undertake and promise on the part of the appellants that the said appellants will pay all costs and damages which may be awarded against them on the appeal not exceeding the sum of four hundred dollars, to which amount we acknowledge ourselves justly and severally bound; and whereas the appellants are desirous of staying the execution of said judgment and order so appealed from, we do further, in consideration of the premises,jointly and severally undertake and promise, and do acknowledge ourselves further jointly and severally bound in the further sum of two thousand eight hundred and sixteen dollars and thirty-six cents, being double the amount, named in said judgment, that if the said judgment and order appealed from, or any part thereof, be affirmed or the appeal be dismissed, the appellants will pay to the plaintiff the amount directed to be paid thereby, or the part of such amount as to which the same shall be affirmed, if affirmed only in part,- and all damages and costs which shall be awarded against the appellants.”
    The respondent moved to dismiss the appeal from the judgment, upon the ground that “ the same was not taken or perfected within one .year after the rendering and entry of judgment.”
    Respondent also moved to dismiss the appeal from the order denying a new trial, upon the grounds: 1. That no appeal has been taken and perfected from said order; 2. That no undertaking has been given for an appeal from said order denying appellants a new trial.
    
      
      Woods & Hoffman, for tbe motions.
    
      E. B. Hoge and P. T. Van Zile, contra.
    
   Tbe appeal from the judgment was dismissed; the motion to dismiss tbe appeal from the order denying a new trial was overruled. All the justices concur. No opinion on file.