Gomez

Gomez v. Superior Court

Good Law
134 Cal. App. 19·1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 114·24 P.2d 856
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 23, 1933Docket No. 9056.California2,104 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Houser, J.

It appears that petitioner, who represents himself as “an indigent person”, is the plaintiff! in an action pending in the Superior Court oi the County of Los Angeles, and that heretofore his application to said court to the effect that he be permitted “to further prosecute” his said action in forma pauperis was denied for the sole reason (which is conceded to be the fact) that the attorney who represents the plaintiff in said action “has a contingent interest therein”. Petitioner now seeks from this court a mandate by which the said superior court and a désignated judge thereof shall be required “to make an order permitting the petitioner to prosecute his action without the prepayment of the jury and reporter’s fees”.

In effect, repeatedly it has been declared by the courts of this state that in its simplicity, not only the policy of the courts, but as well the unwritten law, is that “without money and without price” indigent persons shall be afforded the use of the trial courts in the maintenance and for the protection of their civil rights. The obstacle in the way of the full and unabridged recognition by such courts, as well as the permissive mutual execution of such privilege…

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.