Kenney v. Kelleher

California Supreme Court

Kenney v. Kelleher

63 Cal. 442, 1883 Cal. LEXIS 489

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedMay 30, 1883

StatusPublished

Cited by19 cases

This text of 63 Cal. 442 (Kenney v. Kelleher) 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

Kenney v. Kelleher, 63 Cal. 442, 1883 Cal. LEXIS 489 (Cal. 1883).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Leave to renew a motion may be given after the original motion is denied, and when given may be acted upon. In this case there must necessarily have been an application to the court for leave to renew the motion, and the application must have been granted. This is evident from the fact that the court entertained the motion for an order to show cause, and afterward, when the principal motion came on to be heard, entertained and granted it against the objections of the opposite party. (Bowers v. Cherokee Bob, 46 Cal. 286.)

It is insisted that leave to renew can only be granted by the court, and not by a judge in chambers. But a judge of the Superior Court may, at chambers, grant all orders which are usually granted upon ex parte application. (Code Civ. Proc. § 166.) Orders to show cause are made ex parte. The final order was made by the court. It was said in Ford v. Doyle, 44 Cal. 635, that the doctrine of res adjudicata, in its strict sense, does not apply to motions made in the course of practice, and the court may, upon a proper showing, allow a renewal of a motion once decided. It is added that this leave will rarely be granted unless it appears that a new state of facts has arisen since the former hearing, or that the then existing facts were not presented by reason of surprise or excusable neglect.

But this is not a determination that leave may never be granted upon the same facts more fully stated. The granting or refusing of leave to renew the motion is within the legal discretion of the court, which we ought not to interfere with except in case of abuse.

Ho point is made by appellants as to the sufficiency of the affidavit of the defendant as an “affidavit of merits.”

[445]*445Upon the affidavits and proffered answer of the applicant we cannot say the court below erred in granting the motion to set aside the default judgment.

The portions of the testimony objected to were not entirely irrelevant.

Order appealed from affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Leave to renew a motion may be given after the original motion is denied, and when given may be acted upon. In this case there must necessarily have been an application to the court for leave to renew the motion, and the application must have been granted. This is evident from the fact that the court entertained the motion for an order to show cause, and afterward, when the principal motion came on to be heard, entertained and granted it against the objections of the opposite party. (Bowers v. Cherokee Bob, 46 Cal. 286.)

It is insisted that leave to renew can only be granted by the court, and not by a judge in chambers. But a judge of the Superior Court may, at chambers, grant all orders which are usually granted upon ex parte application. (Code Civ. Proc. § 166.) Orders to show cause are made ex parte. The final order was made by the court. It was said in Ford v. Doyle, 44 Cal. 635, that the doctrine of res adjudicata, in its strict sense, does not apply to motions made in the course of practice, and the court may, upon a proper showing, allow a renewal of a motion once decided. It is added that this leave will rarely be granted unless it appears that a new state of facts has arisen since the former hearing, or that the then existing facts were not presented by reason of surprise or excusable neglect.

But this is not a determination that leave may never be granted upon the same facts more fully stated. The granting or refusing of leave to renew the motion is within the legal discretion of the court, which we ought not to interfere with except in case of abuse.

Ho point is made by appellants as to the sufficiency of the affidavit of the defendant as an “affidavit of merits.”

[445]*445Upon the affidavits and proffered answer of the applicant we cannot say the court below erred in granting the motion to set aside the default judgment.

The portions of the testimony objected to were not entirely irrelevant.

Order appealed from affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 Cal. 442, 1883 Cal. LEXIS 489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kenney-v-kelleher-cal-1883.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack