Heinlen v. Beans

14 P. 855, 73 Cal. 240, 1887 Cal. LEXIS 646
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedAugust 29, 1887
DocketNo. 11999
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 14 P. 855 (Heinlen v. Beans) 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
Heinlen v. Beans, 14 P. 855, 73 Cal. 240, 1887 Cal. LEXIS 646 (Cal. 1887).

Opinion

McFarland, J.

When this case was here upon a legitimate appeal, this court reversed the judgment and directed the court below to enter judgment for defendants. (71 Cal. 295.) The court below entered judgment as directed, which fact is not disputed. From that judgment, which this court directed to be entered, plaintiff now appeals; and respondent moves to dismiss the appeal for thé obvious reason that no appeal lies from such a judgment.

When this court, upon appeal, affirms the judgment of the court below, or directs the entry of a specific judgment, and such judgment is entered by the lower court as directed, the litigation is over and the case ended.

Query: Whether the attempt to appeal in this instance is not a contempt under subdivision 4 of section 1209 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The appeal from the judgment is dismissed. The appeal of appellant from an order of the court below refusing to allow him to amend his complaint after the remittitur had reached that court, is also dismissed. (Kirby v. Superior Court, 68 Cal. 604.)

Thornton, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.

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

Related

Page v. Insurance Co. of North America
3 Cal. App. 3d 121 (California Court of Appeal, 1969)
Woodward v. Perkins
171 P.2d 997 (Montana Supreme Court, 1946)
Boyd v. Lancaster
128 P.2d 41 (California Court of Appeal, 1942)
Phillips v. Patterson
93 P.2d 807 (California Court of Appeal, 1939)
Frye v. King County
289 P. 18 (Washington Supreme Court, 1930)
Lierly v. McEwen
283 P. 943 (California Supreme Court, 1930)
Shank v. Blackburn
215 P. 559 (California Court of Appeal, 1923)
Stimson v. Stimson
152 N.W. 132 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1915)
Lounsberry v. Kelly
146 N.W. 909 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1914)
Rochester v. Seattle, Renton & Southern Railway Co.
135 P. 209 (Washington Supreme Court, 1913)
Klauber v. San Diego Street Car Co.
32 P. 876 (California Supreme Court, 1893)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
14 P. 855, 73 Cal. 240, 1887 Cal. LEXIS 646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heinlen-v-beans-cal-1887.