Reynolds

Reynolds v. E. Clemens Horst Co.

Good Law
1918 Cal. App. LEXIS 593·36 Cal. App. 529·172 P. 623
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 15, 1918Civ. No. 1731.California513 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

This is an application by appellant for a stay of the issuance and transmission of the remittitur from "this court to the superior court of the county of Tehama. The application is made in order that appellant, before execution of the judgment, may have an opportunity to apply to the supreme court of the United States for a writ of certiorari, it being contended that said superior court had no jurisdiction of appellant by reason of its residence in another state. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed by this court on December 28, 1917 ( 35 Cal. App. 711 , [ 170 Pac. 1082 ]), and a petition for a rehearing was denied. On February 25, 1918, the supreme court denied a petition to have the cause heard by that court, and the judgment has therefore become final as far as the state -courts are concerned.

There is no doubt this court has inherent power to grant the application. The same principle is involved as in the exercise of the power of courts of common law to temporarily stay execution of their judgments, whenever it was necessary to accomplish the ends of justice. (Eaton v. Cleveland Ry. Co., 41 Fed. 421 .)

Indeed, it is not disputed by counsel for respondent that the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.