Murphy v. Murphy

California Supreme Court

Murphy v. Murphy

55 P.2d 1169, 5 Cal. 2d 640, 1936 Cal. LEXIS 443

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 17, 1936

DocketSac. 4953

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 55 P.2d 1169 (Murphy v. Murphy) 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

Murphy v. Murphy, 55 P.2d 1169, 5 Cal. 2d 640, 1936 Cal. LEXIS 443 (Cal. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

*641 THE COURT.

This is an appeal by plaintiff from an order of the superior eourt dismissing an action under section 583 of the Code of Civil Procedure because not brought to trial within five years after filing thereof. The action was filed October 31, 1928. The notice of motion to dismiss was given December 27, 1934, and the order of dismissal entered January 3, 1935. Plaintiff contends that the amendment of August, 1933, to section 583, making the five-year period run from the filing of the action instead of from the filing of the answer, is invalid where retroactively applied to her action. This matter has been fully considered by this court in other decisions. The record shows that plaintiff had a period of seventy-one days' from the date of the amendment to bring the action to trial, and the motion to dismiss was not made until over a year after the amendment was passed. In view of these facts we think the trial court did not err in applying the amended statute to her suit. (See Rosefield Packing Co. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. (2d) 120 [47 Pac. (2d) 716].)

The order is affirmed.

Rehearing denied.

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

*641 THE COURT.

This is an appeal by plaintiff from an order of the superior eourt dismissing an action under section 583 of the Code of Civil Procedure because not brought to trial within five years after filing thereof. The action was filed October 31, 1928. The notice of motion to dismiss was given December 27, 1934, and the order of dismissal entered January 3, 1935. Plaintiff contends that the amendment of August, 1933, to section 583, making the five-year period run from the filing of the action instead of from the filing of the answer, is invalid where retroactively applied to her action. This matter has been fully considered by this court in other decisions. The record shows that plaintiff had a period of seventy-one days' from the date of the amendment to bring the action to trial, and the motion to dismiss was not made until over a year after the amendment was passed. In view of these facts we think the trial court did not err in applying the amended statute to her suit. (See Rosefield Packing Co. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. (2d) 120 [47 Pac. (2d) 716].)

The order is affirmed.

Rehearing denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 P.2d 1169, 5 Cal. 2d 640, 1936 Cal. LEXIS 443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-murphy-cal-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack