Henly v. Hastings

3 Cal. 341
California Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1853·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Heydenfeldt, Justice,

delivered the opinion of the court. Murray, Chief Justice, concurred.

In February, 1853, the District Court on an ex parte motion, ordered to be stricken out, a marginal entry of satisfaction of a judgment, which had been rendered two years before. This was a wrongful exercise of authority, and is a proper subject for the reviewing power of this court.

But the defendants do not appeal from that order. They make a motion to set aside that order, and then appeal from the refusal to grant their motion. This is certainly not revisable; it is the mere negative action of the court declining to disturb its first decision. It is that decision which is the proper subject of complaint, and the refusal to alter it, any number of times, would not make it less so. There must be observed in appeals to this court, the order and regularity which belong to well-established principles founded in sound reason.

The appeal is dismissed.

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

Henly v. Hastings, 3 Cal. 341 (Cal. 1853).

3 Cal. 341 (Henly v. Hastings) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Corcoran v. City of Los Angeles
315 P.2d 439 (California Court of Appeal, 1957)
People v. Montgomery
125 P.2d 108 (California Court of Appeal, 1942)
Ferry v. O'Brien
219 P. 467 (California Court of Appeal, 1923)
Smith v. Questa
207 P. 1036 (California Court of Appeal, 1922)
Pignaz v. Burnett
51 P. 48 (California Supreme Court, 1897)
Blyth & Fargo Co. v. Swenson
49 P. 1027 (Utah Supreme Court, 1897)
Davis v. Donner
22 P. 879 (California Supreme Court, 1889)
People v. Vanard
6 Cal. 562 (California Supreme Court, 1856)