Case ID: cal-unrep_2/html/0270-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the COURT.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ROUGH v. BOOTH.
    
    February 23, 1884.
    2 Pac. 91.
    Appeal—Judgment-roll.—The Petition and Bond for Removal, and Order Thereon, are not a part of the judgment-roll, and the bond not being signed by the principal, it is insufficient. The judgment must therefore be affirmed.
    
    W. H. H. Hart for appellant; H. B. Gillis and Calvin Edgerton for respondent.
    
      
       Reversed in bank. See 65 Cal. xx, 3 Pac. 805.
    
    
      
       Cited in Meesley v. Southern Pac. Co., 35 Utah, 263, 99 Pac. 1067, holding that the petition and bond for removal are not properly part of the judgment-roll.
    
   By the COURT.

The appeal in this ease was taken from the judgment alone. On the appeal the plaintiff seeks to review an order of the court below denying his motion that the cause be transferred to the federal court. Under section 670, Code of Civil Procedure, the petition and bond for transfer, and the order thereon, do not constitute a part of the judgment-roll, and there being no bill of exceptions, and no exception, we have nothing before us for consideration but the roll itself. Even if the proceedings for removal were before us for decision, we should consider the bond insufficient, it not being signed by the principal. This was one of the reasons stated by the court for denying the motion, and we think the ruling correct.

No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.