Pickett v. Wallace

54 Cal. 147
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1880
DocketNo. 6,618
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 54 Cal. 147 (Pickett v. Wallace) 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
Pickett v. Wallace, 54 Cal. 147 (Cal. 1880).

Opinion

In bank, Thornton, J.:

A motion is made herein to dismiss this appeal for a failure to file the transcript within the time prescribed under Rules 3 and 4 of this Court, on the certificate of the Clerk of the Court a quo. The certificate is in accordance with the requirements of Rule 4. Notice of this motion was given on the 16th day of May, 1879, and the transcript was filed on the 24th of December following.

The respondent is entitled to a dismissal of the appeal, unless there is some circumstance which should induce the Court to waive the rule. Rules of Court are but a means to accomplish the ends of justice, “ and it is always in the power of the court to suspend its own rules or to except a particular case from their operation, whenever the purposes of justice require it.” (United States v. Breitling, 20 How. S. E. Rep. 252-254; People v. Williams, 32 Cal. 280-288.)

Four of the judges of the late Supreme Court were defendants in this action, and respondents here. They were disqualified to hear and decide the cause. Nor was there a court competent for that purpose until the fifth of January, 1880. The transcript was filed before there was a court competent to hear it. And under these circumstances we think the rules of this Court, which would, if construed according to their terms, deprive the appellant of an opportunity to present his cause to a court competent to hear and decide it, should be suspended.

The motion must therefore be denied.

Morrison, C. J., Ross, J., .McKee, J., Myrick, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.

Mr. Justice McKinstry being disqualified, did not participate in the decision of this case.

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

Related

Adams v. Sharp
394 P.2d 943 (California Supreme Court, 1964)
Ansco Construction Co. v. Ocean View Estates, Inc.
337 P.2d 146 (California Court of Appeal, 1959)
Hallam v. Commerce Mining & Royalty Co.
49 F.2d 103 (Tenth Circuit, 1931)
Baxter v. Boston-Pacific Oil Co.
253 P. 185 (California Court of Appeal, 1927)
Connell v. Higgins
150 P. 769 (California Supreme Court, 1915)
Jeude v. Sims
166 S.W. 1048 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1914)
Hynds v. Hynds
161 S.W. 812 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1913)
Youree v. Youree
81 P. 1023 (California Court of Appeal, 1905)
Gage v. Gunther
68 P. 710 (California Supreme Court, 1902)
In re duPont
8 Del. Ch. 442 (Court of Chancery of Delaware, 1899)
Cronkhite v. Bothwell
31 P. 400 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1892)
Symons v. Bunnell
20 P. 859 (California Supreme Court, 1889)
Chielovich v. Krauss
9 P. 945 (California Supreme Court, 1886)
Spencer v. McMaster
3 P. 798 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1884)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
54 Cal. 147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pickett-v-wallace-cal-1880.