Roe v. Superior Court of San Francisco

California Supreme Court

Roe v. Superior Court of San Francisco

60 Cal. 93, 1882 Cal. LEXIS 404

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 11, 1882

DocketNo. 8,056

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 60 Cal. 93 (Roe v. Superior Court of San Francisco) 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

Roe v. Superior Court of San Francisco, 60 Cal. 93, 1882 Cal. LEXIS 404 (Cal. 1882).

Pincite

Opinion

The Court:

We have examined the record in this matter, and are of opinion that the Court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter and the parties and regularly exercised its jurisdiction. Our examination must be confined to the record. We can go no further. The record in this proceeding for contempt before us is: 1. Affidavits of the facts constituting the contempt. (C. C. P., § 1211.) 2. Answer of Roe. (Id., § 1217.) 3d. Judgment adjudging Roe guilty of contempt.

The judgment states that the matter had been regularly heard, thus showing there was a trial.

It is contended that according to the statute witnesses must be examined (C. C. P., § 1217), and the judgment must be on the answer and evidence (Id., § 1218). That is so, but it does not appear that this course was not pursued. The record must show error, for when jurisdiction is once had of subject-matter and person, as clearly appeared in this case, every intendment must be made to support the judg[94]*94ment. Moreover, the production of witnesses might have been waived and Roe might have consented to trying the case on affidavits.

We must take the record as true. If the contrary is the fact, it must be corrected by motion or suggestion to the Court below. This Court cannot alter the record of the Court a quo. The record shows, in our judgment, jurisdiction in the Court, and that the Court regularly pursued ita-authority.

The judgment of the Court below is affirmed.

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

The Court:

We have examined the record in this matter, and are of opinion that the Court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter and the parties and regularly exercised its jurisdiction. Our examination must be confined to the record. We can go no further. The record in this proceeding for contempt before us is: 1. Affidavits of the facts constituting the contempt. (C. C. P., § 1211.) 2. Answer of Roe. (Id., § 1217.) 3d. Judgment adjudging Roe guilty of contempt.

The judgment states that the matter had been regularly heard, thus showing there was a trial.

It is contended that according to the statute witnesses must be examined (C. C. P., § 1217), and the judgment must be on the answer and evidence (Id., § 1218). That is so, but it does not appear that this course was not pursued. The record must show error, for when jurisdiction is once had of subject-matter and person, as clearly appeared in this case, every intendment must be made to support the judg[94]*94ment. Moreover, the production of witnesses might have been waived and Roe might have consented to trying the case on affidavits.

We must take the record as true. If the contrary is the fact, it must be corrected by motion or suggestion to the Court below. This Court cannot alter the record of the Court a quo. The record shows, in our judgment, jurisdiction in the Court, and that the Court regularly pursued ita-authority.

The judgment of the Court below is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 Cal. 93, 1882 Cal. LEXIS 404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roe-v-superior-court-of-san-francisco-cal-1882.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack