Woodruff v. Colyear

California Supreme Court

Woodruff v. Colyear

156 P. 475, 172 Cal. 440, 1916 Cal. LEXIS 548

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedApril 3, 1916

DocketL. A. No. 4638. In Bank.

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 156 P. 475 (Woodruff v. Colyear) 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

Woodruff v. Colyear, 156 P. 475, 172 Cal. 440, 1916 Cal. LEXIS 548 (Cal. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

In denying the petition for a rehearing of the motion to dismiss the appeal in this case, we deem it proper to say what we have already substantially said several times from the bench, that we are satisfied it must be held that the amendment of our Code of Civil Procedure in the year 1915 [Stats. 1915, p. 209, Code Civ. Proc., sec. 963] abolishing the right of appeal from an order denying a new trial, *Page 441 is necessarily applicable in every case where such order was made subsequent to the date of the taking effect of the amendment, regardless of whether the proceeding for a new trial was initiated prior to or subsequent to such date. It is the condition of the law at the time of the making the order that controls. We are unable to see that the effect of such a ruling can be in any case to deprive the party seeking a new trial of any right given him by the state constitution.

Sloss, J., Shaw, J., Melvin, J., and Lawlor, J., concurred.

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

In denying the petition for a rehearing of the motion to dismiss the appeal in this case, we deem it proper to say what we have already substantially said several times from the bench, that we are satisfied it must be held that the amendment of our Code of Civil Procedure in the year 1915 [Stats. 1915, p. 209, Code Civ. Proc., sec. 963] abolishing the right of appeal from an order denying a new trial, *Page 441 is necessarily applicable in every case where such order was made subsequent to the date of the taking effect of the amendment, regardless of whether the proceeding for a new trial was initiated prior to or subsequent to such date. It is the condition of the law at the time of the making the order that controls. We are unable to see that the effect of such a ruling can be in any case to deprive the party seeking a new trial of any right given him by the state constitution.

Sloss, J., Shaw, J., Melvin, J., and Lawlor, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 P. 475, 172 Cal. 440, 1916 Cal. LEXIS 548, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woodruff-v-colyear-cal-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack