Dellaringa v. Hooker

California Court of Appeal

Dellaringa v. Hooker

161 P. 276, 31 Cal. App. 667, 1916 Cal. App. LEXIS 394

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedOctober 12, 1916

DocketCiv. No. 1389.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 161 P. 276 (Dellaringa v. Hooker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dellaringa v. Hooker, 161 P. 276, 31 Cal. App. 667, 1916 Cal. App. LEXIS 394 (Cal. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

*668 JAMES, J.

This appeal was taken from an order of the superior court made on the motion of defendant E. T. Hooker. This order directed that an order of dismissal of the action theretofore entered upon the written request of the attorneys for .the plaintiff, be set aside. The action was to quiet title and defendant Hooker had answered prior to the request made for the dismissal of the action, in which answer he set up ownership in the property in controversy and asked for an adjudication to be made in his favor. A clerk’s transcript was prepared under the alternative method of appeal, and that is the only document which has been filed in this court. At the time set for oral argument, no counsel for appellant appeared, and counsel for respondent being present stated that the controversy had been settled and that only moot questions were therefore now involved. However, the appellant, upon being advised of the suggestion made, has failed to furnish any stipulation upon which to authorize the court to enter an order of dismissal. We are left without any argument offered by the appellant to sustain the appeal taken. An examination of the record discloses to our minds no reason why the order of the court should be disturbed.

The order is affirmed.

Conrey, P. J., and Shaw, 'J., concurred.

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

*668 JAMES, J.

This appeal was taken from an order of the superior court made on the motion of defendant E. T. Hooker. This order directed that an order of dismissal of the action theretofore entered upon the written request of the attorneys for .the plaintiff, be set aside. The action was to quiet title and defendant Hooker had answered prior to the request made for the dismissal of the action, in which answer he set up ownership in the property in controversy and asked for an adjudication to be made in his favor. A clerk’s transcript was prepared under the alternative method of appeal, and that is the only document which has been filed in this court. At the time set for oral argument, no counsel for appellant appeared, and counsel for respondent being present stated that the controversy had been settled and that only moot questions were therefore now involved. However, the appellant, upon being advised of the suggestion made, has failed to furnish any stipulation upon which to authorize the court to enter an order of dismissal. We are left without any argument offered by the appellant to sustain the appeal taken. An examination of the record discloses to our minds no reason why the order of the court should be disturbed.

The order is affirmed.

Conrey, P. J., and Shaw, 'J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 P. 276, 31 Cal. App. 667, 1916 Cal. App. LEXIS 394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dellaringa-v-hooker-calctapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack