Pardy v. Montgomery

19 P. 530, 77 Cal. 326, 1888 Cal. LEXIS 696
California Supreme Court·Decided November 2, 1888·No. No. 11204·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

Thornton, J.

We cannot take notice of the affidavits in the transcript, showing, as claimed by the appellant, the circumstances under which this action was dismissed " by the court below, for the reason that it is not shown in any mode that such affidavits were used on the hearing of the application in that court.

The court below had power to dismiss the action for want of prosecution (see Code Civ. Proc., sec. 581), and there being no showing to the contrary, we must presume that the court below exercised its power properly and within the rules prescribed by law.

Judgment affirmed.

' Searls, C. J., Works, J., Paterson, J., and Sharp-stein, J., concurred.

Rehearing denied.

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

Pardy v. Montgomery, 19 P. 530, 77 Cal. 326, 1888 Cal. LEXIS 696 (Cal. 1888).

19 P. 530 (Pardy v. Montgomery) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re Winchester
348 P.2d 904 (California Supreme Court, 1960)
Solomon v. Solomon
257 P.2d 760 (California Court of Appeal, 1953)
Bond v. Bond
141 A. 833 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1928)
People Ex Rel. Stone v. Jefferds
58 P. 704 (California Supreme Court, 1899)
McLaughlin v. Clausen
48 P. 487 (California Supreme Court, 1897)
Hassey v. S. San Francisco Homestead & R.R. Ass'n
36 P. 945 (California Supreme Court, 1894)
Spence v. Scott
31 P. 939 (California Supreme Court, 1893)
Gilman v. Bootz
22 P. 255 (California Supreme Court, 1889)
McAulay v. Truckee Ice Co.
21 P. 434 (California Supreme Court, 1889)