Case Name: SYLVANUS WHITE, Appellant, v. FRANK STEVENSON et al., Defendants; CHARLES B. STEVENSON, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1903-07-09
Citations: 139 Cal. 531
Docket Number: L. A. No. 1245
Parties: SYLVANUS WHITE, Appellant, v. FRANK STEVENSON et al., Defendants; CHARLES B. STEVENSON, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 139
Pages: 531–532

Head Matter:
[L. A. No. 1245.
In Bank.
July 9, 1903.]
SYLVANUS WHITE, Appellant, v. FRANK STEVENSON et al., Defendants; CHARLES B. STEVENSON, Respondent.
Appeal—Judgment and Order Denying New Trial—Sufficiency of Bond—Exception to Bule.—The ease of an appeal from the judgment and from an order denying a new trial is an exception to the general rule requiring a separate bond for each separate appeal; and a single undertaking for three hundred dollars is sufficient in such ease.
MOTION to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County and from an order denying a new trial. N. P. Conrey, Judge.
The facts áre stated in the opinion of the court.
Jones & Weller, for Appellant.
C. E. Sumner, for Respondent.

Opinion:
VAN DYKE, J.
The respondent moves to dismiss the appeals of the plaintiff herein, on the ground that the only undertaking filed is conditioned for the payment of all damages that may be awarded against the appellant on the appeals or on a dismissal thereof. But the undertaking referred to recites that whereas the plaintiff has appealed to the supreme court from a judgment rendered and entered in said action on the fourteenth day of December, 1901, and also from the order denying said plaintiffs a new trial of said action, made and entered on the thirty-first day of January, 1902, "Now, therefore, in consideration of the premises and of such appeals, we, the undersigned, . do hereby jointly and severally undertake and promise, ' ' etc.
In case of an appeal from the judgment, and also from the order denying a motion for a new trial, where both of the appeals are referred to in the undertaking and made the consideration for its execution, a single undertaking for three hundred dollars will be sufficient. This is an exception to the general rule requiring a separate undertaking for each appeal; but this practice has been long in force, and has become well settled. (Chester v. Bakersfield T. H. Assn., 64 Cal. 42; Sharon v. Sharon, 68 Cal. 333; Williams v. Dennison, 86 Cal. 430; Granger v. Robinson, 114 Cal. 631; Bell v. Staacke, 137 Cal. 307.)
The motion to dismiss the appeals is denied.
Beatty, C. J., Lorigan, J., Shaw, J., and Angellotti, J., concurred.