Daily Los Angeles herald., 1883-09-18
APPEAL FROM JUSTICES COURTS.
Important Opinion by judge sepul-
veda.
Ia the Superior Court, Los Angeles
county.
Garcia s.. Opinion.
D'Artigues

The question involved in this case is
important as a matter of practice on APP
peals from justices Courts. The record
shows that the notice OF appeal was filed
and served on the 9Th day Of July, 1888,
and the undertaking on appeal was filed
July l7th, 1888. 1t is contended by
respondent that the undertaking on ap-
peal having been filed more than five
days after the service and filing of notice
of appeal, the Court lost jurisdiction and
the appeal must be dismissed. Sections
974 and 97S Of the Code of Civil Proce-
dure are the only ones applicable to this
case. The former section says: ANY
party dissatisfied with judgment rem
dered in civil action ia a police or jus.
tees court may appeal therefrom to the
Superior Court OF the county at any time
within thirty days after the rendition OF
the judgment. The appeal is taken by
filing notice of appeal with the justice
or judge and serving copy on the ad-
verse party
Section 97S prescrbes that Fan ap-
peal from Justices or police court is not
efectual for any purpose unless an un-
del taking be filed with two or more sure.
ties in the sum of one hundred dollars
for the payment OF costs on appeal.
"The adverse party may ex.
cept to the sufiiciency Of the sureties
within five days after the filing of the
The Code nowhere prescribes that the
undertaking required as above should be
tiled within five days, or any number OF
days, after the notice of appeal. II is
true that on appeals to the Supreme
Court the limitation of five days is fixed;
but such provision has no application to
appeals for justices court. The only
limitation on appeals to the Superior
Court, is set forth in Section 974, G. C.
P, giving thirty days after the rendi-
lion of the judgment in justices court,
within which to perfect the appeal. The
Supreme Court of California, in Coker
rs. the Superior Court Of Colusa County
filed Sept. %, 1881, say: ''To effectu.
lte an appeal from the judgment OF
ustice of the peace, three things are
viz: The filing of notice 1
# appeal with the justice, the SER
rice Of a copy of the notice upon the al
'erse party, and the filing Of written
and all these things must
'e done within thirty days after the rem
lition of the judgment tSections 974,
rs, G. c. P). All of them are jurisdic-
iopal prerequisites:
Here the notice OF
lppeal was served and filed, and the un-
on appeal was filed, within
he time prescribed by the statute" (rhe
lotice of appeal was filed June II, 1880,
nd the undertaking on appeal was filed
Tuly 7, 1850 '1t is not required that
he several prerequisites shall be done
or on the same day.
I is only required that all of them must
'e done within thirty days after the rem
lition Of the judgment cal
hough, then, the notice of appeal in the
ase was served the day before it was
lied with the justice, and the undertak-
ag on appeal was not filed until several
lays after the notice had been served
nd filed, yet they were all served and
led within statutory time.
1t results that there being no limita-
ion except the thirty days within which
0 perfect an appeal, if the jurisdictional
Prerequisites are all performed within
aid time the appeal is good.
The motion to dismiss appeal is denied.
SEPULvEDA, Judge.
Sept. IL, 1883.