199 P. 775 | Cal. | 1921
This is an appeal from a judgment against plaintiff, Sarah J. Wall, and in favor of the defendants, dismissing the action because of the failure of plaintiff to file an undertaking securing the payment of costs, as required by section
"[Title of Court and Cause.]
"Sir: You will please take notice that the plaintiff in the above entitled action has appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of California from the order entered by said court on the 10th day of November, 1919, dismissing the above entitled action and do hereby request that a transcript . . . be made up and prepared in compliance with section 953a of Code of Civil Procedure."
Respondents appeared specially before this court to move to dismiss such appeal. This motion was heard and denied, without prejudice, however, "to renewal at hearing of cause on merits." The motion was thereafter renewed, and respondent now contends that the said notice of appeal is not sufficient in that it does not indicate an intention to thereby appeal within the meaning of section 941b of the Code of Civil Procedure. The language of this section is that the party giving the notice "does thereby appeal." The notice here states that appellant "has appealed."
We have considered a number of cases wherein the notice under section 953a was relied on to constitute the notice of appeal. It was said in Boling v. Alton,
In Marcucci v. Vowinckel,
In Estate of Faber,
[1] These cases are decisive of the question of the validity of this appeal. No notice was filed under section 941b, and the notice here contains no language which could serve as the equivalent of a notice that the appellant was thereby taking an appeal.
It is unnecessary, therefore, to consider the merits of the purported appeal.
The appeal is dismissed.
Shaw, J., and Shurtleff, J., concurred. *476