Cochran v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court

Cochran v. Superior Court

179 Cal. 58

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 30, 1918

DocketS. F. No. 8891

StatusPublished

This text of 179 Cal. 58 (Cochran v. Superior Court) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cochran v. Superior Court, 179 Cal. 58 (Cal. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

We are of the opinion that the application for a writ of mandate should be denied. Our action is not to be taken, however, as indicating an opinion that the provisions of the Soldiers and Sailors. Relief Act of March 8, 1918, providing for a stay of proceedings prior to judgment,' are applicable to actions commenced prior to the passage of the act. We are not prepared to hold that the superior court was guilty of any abuse of discretion in refusing to proceed with the trial of-the action at this time, in view of the showing made as to the necessary absence of the defendant, entirely independent of the provisions of the act referred to. In the event of such a change in the existing conditions as would make further refusal to proceed with the trial an abuse of discretion, another application may be made to the superior court.

The application for a writ of mandate is denied.

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

THE COURT.

We are of the opinion that the application for a writ of mandate should be denied. Our action is not to be taken, however, as indicating an opinion that the provisions of the Soldiers and Sailors. Relief Act of March 8, 1918, providing for a stay of proceedings prior to judgment,' are applicable to actions commenced prior to the passage of the act. We are not prepared to hold that the superior court was guilty of any abuse of discretion in refusing to proceed with the trial of-the action at this time, in view of the showing made as to the necessary absence of the defendant, entirely independent of the provisions of the act referred to. In the event of such a change in the existing conditions as would make further refusal to proceed with the trial an abuse of discretion, another application may be made to the superior court.

The application for a writ of mandate is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 Cal. 58, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cochran-v-superior-court-cal-1918.