In re Vance

26 P. 101, 88 Cal. 262, 1891 Cal. LEXIS 680
California Supreme Court·Decided March 7, 1891·No. No. 13594·Published·Cited by 7 cases

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

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

26 P. 101 (In re Vance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Butler v. Butler
255 Cal. App. 2d 132 (California Court of Appeal, 1967)
Gale v. Tuolumne County Water Co.
145 P. 532 (California Supreme Court, 1914)
Abbott v. Abbott
141 P. 939 (California Court of Appeal, 1914)
In re the Estate of Wittmeier
50 P. 393 (California Supreme Court, 1897)
People v. Kuhlman
50 P. 382 (California Supreme Court, 1897)
Natoma Water & Min. Co. v. Hancock
36 P. 100 (California Supreme Court, 1894)
Ex parte Clancy
27 P. 411 (California Supreme Court, 1891)