Moffitt v. Ford Motor Co.

California Court of Appeal

Moffitt v. Ford Motor Co.

1 P.2d 994, 115 Cal. App. 499

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJuly 16, 1931

DocketDocket No. 7279.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1 P.2d 994 (Moffitt v. Ford Motor Co.) 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

Moffitt v. Ford Motor Co., 1 P.2d 994, 115 Cal. App. 499 (Cal. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

ARCHBALD, J., pro tem.

Motion by respondent to affirm judgment of the trial court, or advance hearing of appeal on the calendar.

It would seem to require about the same amount of work to determine the motion to affirm as it would to determine the appeal on its merits, and we are of the opinion that the appeal should be so determined.

With regard to the motion to advance, respondent urges, among other things, her financial condition, and that she is depending on recoveries in the case for money to pay her obligations. That of itself would seem to be a ground that most litigants who have a judgment in their favor or even hopes of obtaining one might urge, and does not impress us as a good cause for advancement, but the affidavit filed does show that respondent is nearly seventy-nine years of age and is infirm in health and general physical condition, and the case is one in which she is suing for damages alleged to háve been incurred through the negligence of defendants, and in view of the fact that the ease has not yet been tried on the merits, we believe the question of whether it should or should not be so tried should be *501 determined speedily, so that if a trial is to be had it may be reached while the respondent is in a physical and mental condition to present her case.

Good cause being shown and all briefs being now on file the motion to advance will be granted and the matter placed on the next regular calendar. Motion to affirm is denied.

Works, P. J., and Craig, J., concurred.

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

ARCHBALD, J., pro tem.

Motion by respondent to affirm judgment of the trial court, or advance hearing of appeal on the calendar.

It would seem to require about the same amount of work to determine the motion to affirm as it would to determine the appeal on its merits, and we are of the opinion that the appeal should be so determined.

With regard to the motion to advance, respondent urges, among other things, her financial condition, and that she is depending on recoveries in the case for money to pay her obligations. That of itself would seem to be a ground that most litigants who have a judgment in their favor or even hopes of obtaining one might urge, and does not impress us as a good cause for advancement, but the affidavit filed does show that respondent is nearly seventy-nine years of age and is infirm in health and general physical condition, and the case is one in which she is suing for damages alleged to háve been incurred through the negligence of defendants, and in view of the fact that the ease has not yet been tried on the merits, we believe the question of whether it should or should not be so tried should be *501 determined speedily, so that if a trial is to be had it may be reached while the respondent is in a physical and mental condition to present her case.

Good cause being shown and all briefs being now on file the motion to advance will be granted and the matter placed on the next regular calendar. Motion to affirm is denied.

Works, P. J., and Craig, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 P.2d 994, 115 Cal. App. 499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moffitt-v-ford-motor-co-calctapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack