Case Name: S. A. BAKER, Respondent, v. THOS. A. SLOCUM, Appellant
Court: District Court of Appeal of the State of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1920-08-13
Citations: 49 Cal. App. 56
Docket Number: Civ. No. 3268
Parties: S. A. BAKER, Respondent, v. THOS. A. SLOCUM, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Appellate Reports
Volume: 49
Pages: 56–57

Head Matter:
[Civ. No. 3268.
Second Appellate District, Division Two.
August 13, 1920.]
S. A. BAKER, Respondent, v. THOS. A. SLOCUM, Appellant.
Appeal—Failure to File Undertaking—Jurisdiction—Preparation op Record.—The filing of a notice of appeal, without any undertaking, complies with the provisions of section ,941b of the Code of Civil Procedure, and vests jurisdiction in the appellate court; and after jurisdiction is thus vested in the appellate court, the appellant may elect to prepare his transcript under section 950 of the Code of Civil Procedure, instead of adopting the alternative method permitted by section 953a of said code, without affecting the validity of his appeal.
MOTION to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Ventura Couhty. Merle J. Rogers, Judge.
Motion denied.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
James R. Jaffray for Appellant.
Arthur H. Blanchard for Respondent.

Opinion:
WELLER, J.
Respondent moves to dismiss the appeal because of the failure of appellant to file the undertaking for costs required by section 940 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Notice of appeal was filed with the clerk of the superior court November 16, 1919, and the printed transcript, containing the judgment-roll' and two bills of exceptions, was filed in this court on December 24, 1919.
The filing of the notice of appeal without an undertaking complied with the provisions of section 941b of the Code of Civil Procedure, and thereupon this court acquired jurisdiction of the appeal. After jurisdiction is thus vested in this court, the appellant may elect to prepare his transcript under section 950 of the Code of Civil Procedure, instead of adopting the alternative method permitted by section 953a of the same code, without affecting the validity of his appeal. (Lang v. Lilley & Thurston Co., 161 Cal. 295, [119 Pac. 100].)
Motion denied.
Finlayson, P. J., and Thomas, J., concurred.