Johnson v. Superior Court

Good Law
1926 Cal. App. LEXIS 284·79 Cal. App. 650·250 P. 686
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 6, 1926Docket No. 5448.California1,766 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Works, J.

The petition alleges that E. M. Ragan commenced an action against petitioner in a justice’s court and had judgment; that petitioner then prosecuted an appeal to respondent court; and that the appeal was dismissed by respondent court, about two months after it was perfected, because of a noncompliance with one of respondent’s rules of court. The rule in question was attempted to be adopted in 1921, and provided that an appeal might be dismissed for a failure to prosecute it or for unnecessary delay in bringing it to a hearing; that upon the failure of the appellant to have the cause placed upon the trial calendar within thirty days after the receipt by the clerk of the papers necessary to perfect the appeal the respondent might pay the clerk’s costs, have the cause placed on the trial calendar, and, after notice, have the appeal dismissed; and that a failure to have an appeal placed on the calendar within the thirty days specified would be deemed a “failure to prosecute” as that expression is employed in the early part of the rule. The petition asks for the writ of mandate to compel respondent court “to reinstate said appeal and try"• said action.” We. issued the alternative writ.…

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.