Middlebrook

Middlebrook v. Superior Court

Good Law
1925 Cal. App. LEXIS 129·75 Cal. App. 35·241 P. 914
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 2, 1925Docket No. 5218.California976 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Conrey, J.

On the twenty-second day of July, 1924, the petitioners herein appealed to the Superior Court of Los Angeles County from a judgment rendered against them as defendants in the justice’s court of Los Angeles township. On September 18, 1924, the Industrial Loan & Investment Company, plaintiff in that action, duly presented to the court a motion to set the case for trial. That motion was made upon notice and also according to a stipulation between the parties “that said cause might be called for setting” at that time. Pursuant to said motion “and pursuant to said stipulation, the respondent superior court set the trial of said appeal for the 23rd day of September, 1925, in department 9 of said court.” In August, 1925, upon motion of the plaintiff in that action, and solely upon the ground that the appeal had not been brought to trial within one year from the date of filing of the appeal, the appeal was dismissed. By reason of the dismissal so entered the Superior Court has refused to try the case.

The facts above stated appear in the petition for writ of mandate. Petitioners contend that in dismissing the appeal the Court acted in excess of its jurisdiction. Wherefore, they now by…

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.