Case ID: cal-unrep_2/html/0747-01.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

SIMON v. SUPERIOR COURT.
    No. 11,986;
    March 20, 1887.
    13 Pac. 474.
    Writ of Review-—Appeal from Justice’s Court—Statement of Facts.—Upon an application for a writ of review of a judgment of the superior court of California, dismissing an appeal taken on both law and fact from a justice’s court, where no statement of the case on appeal had been made and filed as provided by section 975, Code of Civil Procedure of California, the application was denied on the ground that the petition did not set forth sufficient facts.
    The petition set forth, in substance, that one B. commenced an action for one hundred and twenty-three dollars against petitioner, in a justice’s court; that on June 12, 1885, defendant in the said action (petitioner here) served on plaintiff’s attorneys, and filed in said justice’s court, his answer, denying all the allegations of the complaint. On said last day named judgment was entered against Simon, “but without determining the issues raised by said answer, and as if the same had not been filed.” July 3, 1885, Simon appealed to superior court on questions of both law and fact, and filed undertakings for costs and stay of execution. B. subsequently moved the superior court (respondent here) to dismiss the appeal upon the grounds “that the appeal is on both law and fact, and no question of fact was taken in the court below, the defendant having failed either to demur or answer to the summons and complaint duly served on him, and his default was duly entered in said cause, and judgment as prayed for entered against him; and on the further ground that no statement of the case was made and filed in said cause as provided by section 975, Code of Civil Procedure.” September 23, 1885, the motion to dismiss was denied, but subsequently, on January 14, 1887, the order of denial was vacated, and the motion to dismiss granted; the court refusing to entertain the appeal because no statement on appeal had been filed or settled, and the court considering the appeal from questions of law only. Wherefore petitioner prays a writ of review, etc.
    J. M. Lesser and H. I. Kowalsky for petitioner; H. C. Firebaugh for respondent.
   By the COURT.

Application for a writ of review denied. The petition does not set forth sufficient facts.