Case Name: MONROE RANDALL, WM. A. GAINES, and RANDALL & GAINES, a Copartnership, Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent
Court: District Court of Appeal of the State of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1912-05-27
Citations: 19 Cal. App. 184
Docket Number: Civ. No. 1197
Parties: MONROE RANDALL, WM. A. GAINES, and RANDALL & GAINES, a Copartnership, Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Appellate Reports
Volume: 19
Pages: 184–185

Head Matter:
[Civ. No. 1197.
Second Appellate District.
May 27, 1912.]
MONROE RANDALL, WM. A. GAINES, and RANDALL & GAINES, a Copartnership, Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent.
Appeal from Justice’s Court—Exception to Sureties—Delay of Appellant in Notice of Justification—Loss of Eight of Appeal— Dismissal—Certiorari.—Where upon appeal from a justice’s court to the superior court the respondent excepted to the sufficiency of the sureties upon the appeal bond, and the appellant gave notice of justification of the sureties and of the time set therefor, which was more than five days after the service of the notice of exception, such delayed notice was ineffectual to confer jurisdiction of the appeal upon the superior court, and upon its dismissal of the appeal a writ of review will not lie to annul its action.
APPLICATION for writ of review to annul the action of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County in dismissing an appeal from the Justice’s Court of Los Angeles Township. Prank G. Pinlayson, Judge.
The facts are stated in the petition for the writ, and are stated generally in the opinion of the court.
Randall & Gaines, for Petitioners.
Edward Judson Brown, for Respondent.

Opinion:
THE COURT.
It appears from the record, files and papers herein that the notice of exception to the sufficiency of the sureties was duly given and made on the 22d of March, 1912; that the notice for the justification of the sureties and •the time set therefor was the twenty-ninth day of March, more than five days after service of the notice of exception. This was beyond the time authorized by the statute, and such notice was ineffectual to preserve the rights of the parties upon the appeal. It is, therefore, ordered that the writ be denied.