Gray

The court below rendered and caused to be entered a judgment dismissing this action on the ground that plaintiffs had not prosecuted the same with reasonable diligence.

This appeal is by the plaintiffs from said judgment on a bill of exceptions.

There is no dispute with regard to the facts, and, as they are fully and accurately narrated in the brief of counsel for the respondent, we shall here state them in the language of said brief:

The reasons upon which resistance to the motion is urged are set forth in an affidavit made by Mr. Fisher Ames, counsel for the plaintiffs. They are as follows:

Sections 581a and 583 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not, as is readily observable from the statement of the facts, involved here.

But that nisi prius courts possess inherent power to dismiss pending actions upon the ground that they have not been diligently prosecuted is a proposition repeatedly confirmed and well settled in this state. (Kubli v. Hawkett, 89 Cal. 638 , [ 27 Pac. 57 ]; First National Bank v. Nason, 115 Cal. 626 , [ 47 Pac. 595 ]; Stanley v. Gillen, 119 Cal. 176 , [ 51 Pac. 183 ]; People v. Jefferds, 126 Cal. 296 , [ 58 Pac. 704 ]; San Jose L. & W. Co. v. Allen, 129…