In Re Graves

216 P. 386, 62 Cal. App. 168, 1923 Cal. App. LEXIS 285
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedMay 9, 1923
DocketCrim. No. 984.
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 216 P. 386 (In Re Graves) 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
In Re Graves, 216 P. 386, 62 Cal. App. 168, 1923 Cal. App. LEXIS 285 (Cal. Ct. App. 1923).

Opinions

*169 FINLAYSON, P. J.

This is an application for a supersedeas. By a judgment of the superior court for Los Angeles County, made January 22, 1923, petitioner was suspended from the practice of law for one year. From that judgment he has taken an appeal to this court, and now asks for a supersedeas to stay the judgment of suspension pending his appeal.

This is not a case for the issuance of supersedeas. The judgment of suspension acts directly against petitioner without the necessity for process or proceedings of any kind for its enforcement. (Tyler v. Presley, 72 Cal. 290 [13 Pac. 856].) It is true that the power to issue the writ of supersedeas is inherent in an appellate court, but it will only be issued to restrain proceedings upon the judgment from which the appeal has been taken. Its effect is merely to stay proceedings for the enforcement of the judgment. It does not reverse, suspend, supersede, or impair the force of the judgment itself. That remains in all respects the same. The general rule, therefore, is that supersedeas will not issue where the judgment does not command or permit any act to be done, or where it is not of a nature to be actively and affirmatively enforced by execution or otherwise. (Dulin v. Pacific Wood & Coal Co., 98 Cal. 304 [33 Pac. 123]; Tyler v. Presley, supra; Hoppe v. Hoppe, 99 Cal. 536 [34 Pac. 222] ; Taylor v. Superior Court, 44 Cal. App. 23 [185 Pac. 994]; Wood v. Board of Commrs., 50 Cal. App. 594 [195 Pac. 739].) Here the judgment of suspension is self-executing. There is no further action to be taken thereon by the court below, and consequently nothing upon which the supersedeas can act.

The application is denied.

Works, J., concurred.

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

Related

Griffith v. State ex rel. Scholl
225 So. 2d 872 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1969)
Dabney v. Philleo
232 P.2d 481 (California Supreme Court, 1951)
Kress v. Corey
189 P.2d 352 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1948)
Smith v. Smith
116 P.2d 3 (California Supreme Court, 1941)
Clayton v. Schultz
87 P.2d 355 (California Supreme Court, 1939)
People v. Bates
1 V.I. 437 (Virgin Islands, 1938)
McCann v. Union Bank & Trust Co.
47 P.2d 283 (California Supreme Court, 1935)
People Ex Rel. Boarts v. City of Westmoreland
27 P.2d 394 (California Court of Appeal, 1933)
Erickson v. Municipal Court
21 P.2d 480 (California Court of Appeal, 1933)
Houtchens v. Mercer
30 S.W.2d 545 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1930)
In Re Lincoln
283 P. 965 (California Court of Appeal, 1929)
Lincoln v. Superior Court
271 P. 1107 (California Court of Appeal, 1928)
In Re Albori
272 P. 321 (California Court of Appeal, 1928)
Imperial Water Co. No. 3 v. Hall
250 P. 394 (California Supreme Court, 1926)
Lickley v. County Board of Education
217 P. 133 (California Court of Appeal, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
216 P. 386, 62 Cal. App. 168, 1923 Cal. App. LEXIS 285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-graves-calctapp-1923.