From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rough v. Booth

Supreme Court of California
Feb 23, 1884
2 Cal. Unrep. 270 (Cal. 1884)

Opinion

          The petition and bond for removal, and order thereon, are not a part of the judgment roll, and the bond not being signed by the principal, it is insufficient. The judgment must therefore be affirmed.

         Department 2.

         COUNSEL

         W. H. H. Hart, for appellant.

         H. B. Gillis and Calvin Edgerton, for respondent.


          OPINION

         THE COURT.

          The appeal in this case was taken from the judgment alone. On the appeal the plaintiff seeks to review an order of the court below denying his motion that the cause be transferred to the federal court. Under section 670, Code Civil Proc., the petition and bond for transfer, and the order thereon, do not constitute a part of the judgment roll, and there being no bill of exceptions, and no exception, we have nothing before us for consideration but the roll itself. Even if the proceedings for removal were before us for decision, we should consider the bond insufficient, it not being signed by the principal. This was one of the reasons stated by the court for denying the motion, and we think the ruling correct.

          No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

Rough v. Booth

Supreme Court of California
Feb 23, 1884
2 Cal. Unrep. 270 (Cal. 1884)
Case details for

Rough v. Booth

Case Details

Full title:ROUGH v. BOOTH.

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Feb 23, 1884

Citations

2 Cal. Unrep. 270 (Cal. 1884)
2 Cal. Unrep. 270

Citing Cases

Maples v. Rogers

An experienced confidential informant (“CI”) approached Knoxville Police Department Officer Michal Geddings…

Hudgins v. Boyd

The daughter stated that she informed her mother of Petitioner's condition because he could “cause problems”…