Chamberlin v. Reed

California Supreme Court

Chamberlin v. Reed

16 Cal. 207

California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1860·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Cope, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Field, C. J. concurring.

Where an appeal regularly taken is dismissed for want of prosecution, the dismissal operates as an affirmance of the judgment, and a second appeal cannot be allowed. The only mode of avoiding the consequences of such dismissal is to move, during the term or before the remittitur has gone out, to vacate the order and reinstate the cause. The appeal must be dismissed, and it is so ordered.

See Karth v. Light (15 Cal).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cope, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Field, C. J. concurring.

Where an appeal regularly taken is dismissed for want of prosecution, the dismissal operates as an affirmance of the judgment, and a second appeal cannot be allowed. The only mode of avoiding the consequences of such dismissal is to move, during the term or before the remittitur has gone out, to vacate the order and reinstate the cause. The appeal must be dismissed, and it is so ordered.

See Karth v. Light (15 Cal).

Chamberlin v. Reed, 16 Cal. 207 (Cal. 1860).

Pincite

16 Cal. 207 (Chamberlin v. Reed) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related