Case Name: VON SCHMIDT v. WIDBER, Treasurer
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1893-03-08
Citations: 3 Cal. Unrep. 835
Docket Number: No. 14,935
Parties: VON SCHMIDT v. WIDBER, Treasurer.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Unreported Cases
Volume: 3
Pages: 835–836

Head Matter:
VON SCHMIDT v. WIDBER, Treasurer.
No. 14,935;
March 8, 1893.
32 Pac. 532.
Appeal Bond—When Required.—A County Officer, against whom suit has been brought, is not exempted from filing an undertaking on appeal by Code of Civil Procedure, section 1058, declaring that in any civil action wherein the state is plaintiff, or any state officer in his official capacity or on behalf of the state, or any county, city, or town, is plaintiff or defendant, no undertaking shall, as to such parties be required.
APPEAL from Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco; A. A. Sanderson, Judge.
Action by A. W. Yon Schmidt against James H. Widber, treasurer of the city and county of San Francisco. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Dismissed.
John H. Durst for appellant; Tilden & Tilden for respondent.
Cited with approval in State v. Bechtner, 132 Wis. 636, 113 N. W. 43, where the court discusses a statute of Wisconsin similar to that of California as to the exemption of county officers from the rule in regard to appeal bonds.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is a motion to dismiss an appeal from the judgment rendered in favor of respondent in the above-entitled action upon the ground that no undertaking upon appeal has ever been filed. Upon an examination of the record we find no bond upon appeal was ever filed. A county officer is not exempted from filing an undertaking on appeal by virtue of the provisions of section 1058, Code of Civil Procedure. Let the appeal from the judgment be dismissed.