Case ID: cal-app_21/html/0676-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "THE COURT.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[Civ. No. 1321.
    Second Appellate District.
    April 7, 1913.]
    CHAS. H. BLAIR, Appellant, v. BROWNSTONE OIL AND REFINING COMPANY (a Corporation), et al., Respondents.
    Appeal—Hotice and Undertaking—Dismissal oe Appeal.—Where the record shows that the notice of appeal from a judgment and from an order denying a new trial was duly given, and that within a day or tw.o succeeding an undertaking on appeal from the judgment was filed, the appeal from the order will not be dismissed because the same was not included in the undertaking given.
    MOTION to dismiss appeal from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Gavin W. Craig, Judge.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
    William H. Fuller, and Chas. E. Putnam, for Appellant.
    Leonard B. Slosson, and George E. Farrand, for Respondents.
   THE COURT.

Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order denying a new trial. The record shows that notice of appeal from the judgment and from an order denying a new trial was duly given; that within a day or two succeeding an undertaking on appeal from the judgment was filed. Respondents contend that the appeal from the order should be dismissed because the same was not included in the undertaking given. Upon the authority of Mitchell v. California etc. Steamship Co., 154 Cal. 731, [99 Pac. 202], the motion must be denied. It is there held that the notice of appeal is sufficient regardless of the filing of the undertaking.

Motion denied.