Case Name: C. B. WILLIAMS, Respondent, v. E. F. DENNISON, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1890-11-25
Citations: 86 Cal. 430
Docket Number: No. 13987
Parties: C. B. WILLIAMS, Respondent, v. E. F. DENNISON, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 86
Pages: 430–431

Head Matter:
[No. 13987.
In Bank.
November 25, 1890.]
C. B. WILLIAMS, Respondent, v. E. F. DENNISON, Appellant.
Appeal — Notice — Surplusage. — Where a notice of appeal recites that the appeal is taken from the judgment and order denying a new trial, “and from each and every order and judgment made and entered in said cause, ” the appeal will be treated as only an appeal from the judgment and order denying a new trial, and the last recital will be treated as surplusage.
Id.—■ Undertaking — Double Appeal. — One undertaking on appeal is sufficient where there is in the same notice and transcript an appeal from a judgment, with an appeal from an order denying a new trial, and the undertaking is in terms applicable to both appeals.
Motion to dismiss an appeal from the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco.
The notice of appeal stated that the appeal was taken from the judgment,— describing it and giving its date,— and “also from the order overruling the motion for a new trial, and from each and every order and judgment made and entered in said cause,” and the undertaking on appeal recited the appeal as stated in the notice.
B. McKinne, for Appellant.
J. C. Bates, for Respondent.

Opinion:
Fox, J.
— The appeal in this case must be treated as an appeal from the judgment and order denying the motion for new trial. Under the notice, nothing will come under review on the hearing which would not be subject to review if the notice had omitted the words " and from each and every order and judgment made and entered in said cause."
Treating the appeal as being from the judgment and the order denying the motion for new trial only, as we think it must be treated, and the same not being separately taken, the undertaking is sufficient in form and in substance. ( Chester v. Bakersfield T. H. Ass'n, 64 Cal. 42; Corcoran v. Desmond, 71 Cal. 102, 103.) The other cases cited in support of the motion to dismiss the appeal are not in point.
Motion to dismiss the appeal denied.
Sharpstein, J., McFarland, J., Paterson, J., and Thornton, J., concurred.