Santa Rosa City Railroad v. Central Street Railway Co.

44 P. 733, 112 Cal. 436, 1896 Cal. LEXIS 697
California Supreme Court·Decided April 15, 1896·No. No. 15,202·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

The Court.

In this cause it is impossible for a majority of the court to arrive at a conclusion upon the merits of the case, for the reason that the chief justice is disqualified, and, of the six associates, Justices Van Fleet, Garoutte, and McFarland think that the judg[437] ment of the lower court should be reversed for the reasons given in the former opinion of Justice Van Fleet (38 Pac. Rep. 986), and Justices Henshaw, Harrison, and Temple think that said judgment should be affirmed. The case has been twice argued in Bank— orally and by briefs—and frequent consultations have demonstrated that the differences of opinion among the said justices are permanent. Moreover, there is no probability of immediate change in the personnel of the court. Under these circumstances, we think that, upon the authority of Frankel v. Deidesheimer, 93 Cal. 73, and Luco v. De Toro, 88 Cal. 26, the judgment should be affirmed.

The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

Beatty, C. J., being disqualified, did not participate in the foregoing.

Rehearing denied.

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

Santa Rosa City Railroad v. Central Street Railway Co., 44 P. 733, 112 Cal. 436, 1896 Cal. LEXIS 697 (Cal. 1896).

44 P. 733 (Santa Rosa City Railroad v. Central Street Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

REA Enterprises v. California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission
52 Cal. App. 3d 596 (California Court of Appeal, 1975)
Olds v. Alvord
191 So. 434 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
Adams v. Saunders
191 So. 312 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
Thorne v. Squier
249 N.W. 497 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1933)
The Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. Jurgens
149 P. 560 (California Supreme Court, 1915)
Matter of Zany
130 P. 710 (California Supreme Court, 1913)
Los Angeles Ry. Co. v. Los Angeles
92 P. 490 (California Supreme Court, 1907)
L.A. Ry. v. City of L.A.
152 Cal. 242 (California Supreme Court, 1907)
State ex rel. Hampton v. McClung
47 Fla. 224 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1904)
Smith v. Ferries & C. H. Railway Co.
51 P. 710 (California Supreme Court, 1897)