In re Vance

California Supreme Court

In re Vance

26 P. 101, 88 Cal. 262, 1891 Cal. LEXIS 680

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 7, 1891

DocketNo. 13594

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 26 P. 101 (In re Vance) 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

In re Vance, 26 P. 101, 88 Cal. 262, 1891 Cal. LEXIS 680 (Cal. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Sharpstein, J.

This appeal is from a judgment in a

case of contempt, and the respondent moves to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that an appeal does not lie in such a case, because it is provided by the Code of Civil Procedure that “ the judgment and orders of the court or judge, made in cases of contempt, are final and conclusive.” In Tyler v. Connolly, 65 Cal. 30, the question is carefully considered, and the conclusion reached that no appeal lies from a judgment imposing a fine of more than three hundred dollars for a contempt of court, expressly overruling People v. O’Neil, 47 Cat. 109. Tyler v. Connolly, 65 Cal. 30, was followed in Sanchez v. Newman, 70 Cal. 210.

We see no ground for disturbing the rule laid down in Tyler v. Connolly, 65 Cal. 30.

Appeal dismissed.

McFarland, J., De Haven, J., Garoutte, J., Harrison, J., Paterson, J., and Beatty, C. J., concurred.

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

Sharpstein, J.

This appeal is from a judgment in a

case of contempt, and the respondent moves to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that an appeal does not lie in such a case, because it is provided by the Code of Civil Procedure that “ the judgment and orders of the court or judge, made in cases of contempt, are final and conclusive.” In Tyler v. Connolly, 65 Cal. 30, the question is carefully considered, and the conclusion reached that no appeal lies from a judgment imposing a fine of more than three hundred dollars for a contempt of court, expressly overruling People v. O’Neil, 47 Cat. 109. Tyler v. Connolly, 65 Cal. 30, was followed in Sanchez v. Newman, 70 Cal. 210.

We see no ground for disturbing the rule laid down in Tyler v. Connolly, 65 Cal. 30.

Appeal dismissed.

McFarland, J., De Haven, J., Garoutte, J., Harrison, J., Paterson, J., and Beatty, C. J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 P. 101, 88 Cal. 262, 1891 Cal. LEXIS 680, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-vance-cal-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack