McKeen v. Naughton

Citations

• 88 Cal. 462
• 26 P. 354
• 1891 Cal. LEXIS 715

Syllabus

<p>Appeal prom Justice’s Court — Undertaking — Jurisdiction — Void Judgment. — The failure to file an undertaking on appeal from a justice’s court within thirty days from the rendition of the judgment renders the appeal ineffectual for any purpose, and the judgment of the appellate court rendered without such undertaking is void.</p> <p>Id.—Jurisdiction of Municipal Court of Appeals — Sale under Void Judgment.—The judgment of the former municipal court of appeals of the city and county of San Francisco, to which an appeal had been transferred from the county court, upon which no bond had been filed within thirty days, is without jurisdiction and void; and a sale of land under execution issued upon such judgment confers no title.</p> <p>Id.—Motion to Dismiss Void Appeal — Want op Jurisdiction — Estoppel op Appellant— Quieting Title. — The action of the appellant in resisting a motion to dismiss the appeal in the municipal court of appeals does not estop him from asserting want of jurisdiction in that court, or from assailing the invalidity of the judgment, in an action brought to quiet title to the land purchased at an execution sale thereunder.</p> <p>Estoppel in Pais — Pleading. — The party claiming an estoppel in pais, and relying upon it as a defense, should set out the matters constituting it in his answer.</p> <p>Id. •— Representation op Fact •— Statement op Law. — A representation, in order to work an estoppel, must generally be a statement of fact, and the statement of a proposition of law will not conclude the party making it from denying its correctness, unless it is understood to mean nothing but a simple statement of fact.</p>