Guardianship of Degnan

64 P. 485, 132 Cal. 260, 1901 Cal. LEXIS 1044
California Supreme Court·Decided March 19, 1901·No. S.F. No. 2678.·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

THE COURT.

—This is a motion to dismiss the appeal of Bridget Degnan, based upon her own affidavit and the supporting affidavits of others, and pressed before the court by respondent’s attorneys. It -may be conceded that the regular, orderly, and courteous method of procedure would have been for the client to give notice to her own attorney of her desire that her appeal should be dismissed, and in the event of his refusal, after notice,, to procure a substitution of attorneys, and through the new attorney bring the matter to the attention of the court. But the fact that the mode here adopted is unusual does not deprive the appellant of her right to a dismissal, when it is *261 made to appear to the court, as in this ease it is, that such is her desire; it not being contended that her attorney has any special contract or lien upon any property in controversy entitling him to continue the prosecution. By way of intimation, rather than accusation, it has been suggested that there has been some impropriety or unprofessional conduct upon the part of some one of the attorneys connected with this matter. If this be so, its consideration has no place in this determination, and the matter can receive attention only after the preferment of charges properly formulated.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

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

Guardianship of Degnan, 64 P. 485, 132 Cal. 260, 1901 Cal. LEXIS 1044 (Cal. 1901).

64 P. 485 (Guardianship of Degnan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Gates
376 F.2d 65 (Tenth Circuit, 1967)
Hudson v. American Founders Life Ins. Co. of Denver
377 P.2d 391 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1962)
Kullgren v. Navy Gas & Supply Co.
135 P.2d 1007 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1943)
Cotton-Macauley Co. v. Deshields
198 P. 1026 (California Court of Appeal, 1921)
Holmes v. Jewett
55 Colo. 187 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1913)