Case Name: CHARLES WITTRAM, Appellant, v. CHARLES R. CROMMELIN, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1887-02-22
Citations: 72 Cal. 89
Docket Number: No. 11995
Parties: CHARLES WITTRAM, Appellant, v. CHARLES R. CROMMELIN, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 72
Pages: 89–90

Head Matter:
[No. 11995.
Department One.
February 22, 1887.]
CHARLES WITTRAM, Appellant, v. CHARLES R. CROMMELIN, Respondent.
Appeal — Undertaking — Failure of Sureties to Justtett—Effect of. —The failure of the sureties on an undertaking on appeal to justify after an exception to their sufficiency has been taken does not render the appeal ineffectual.
Id. — Stipulation Extending Time for Justification —Time for Filing Transcript. — A stipulation of the respondent extending the time for the justification of the sureties on the undertaking does not relieve the appellant from the necessity of filing the transcript on appeal within the time limited by the rules of the Supreme Court.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial.
The motion was made to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that the appellant had failed to file the transcript within the time required by rule 2 of the Supreme Court. The judgment appealed from was rendered in favor of the defendant for a sum of money. In order to perfect his appeal and to stay execution of the judgment, the appellant filed an undertaldng as required by the Code of Civil Procedure, io the sufficiency of the sureties, on which the respondent excepted. The further facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Moses G. Cobb, and C. Wittram, for Appellant.
B. McKinne, for Respondent.

Opinion:
Paterson, J.
— The failure of the sureties on an undertaking on appeal to justify after an exception to their pecuniary sufficiency has been taken does not render the appeal ineffectual. (Hill v. Finnigan, 54 Cal. 311.) It merely operates to avoid the stay of execution of the judgment appealed from. (Schacht v. Odell, 52 Cal. 449.)
The stipulation of respondent, therefore, extending the time for appellant's sureties to justify is not a waiver of objection to any of the proceedings taken to effect the appeal. The notice of appeal was filed and served •on October 6, 1886. On the eleventh day of October, 1886, an undertaking on appeal was filed, and on the 14th of the same month the respondent served and filed exceptions to the sufficiency of the sureties. Since that time the justification of said sureties has been postponed from time to time by stipulation of counsel for the respective parties. No transcript has been filed herein, and the clerk of the Superior Court certifies "that the appellant has not requested the clerk to certify to a correct transcript of the record in said cause, and that no statement or bill of exceptions on appeal has been filed herein by plaintiff."
For this failure to file the transcript within the forty days prescribed by the rule the motion to dismiss must be granted.
Appeal dismissed.
McKinstrY) J.) and Temple, J., concurred.