Grogan

Grogan v. Ruckle

Good Law
1 Cal. 193
Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 15, 1850California1,158 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Bennett, J.

By the Court,

On the re-argument, of this cause the objection was taken by the appellant, that this court cannot, after its judgment has been pronounced, direct a re-hearing.

Section 280 of the Practice Act provides that, “ after an ap- “ peal shall have been heard and determined, the judgment or “ order of the supreme court therein, and all things concerning “ the same, shall be remitted to the district court of the proper “ county, and thereupon such further proceedings shall be had “ in that court as may be necessary to carry such judgment or “ order into effect.”

Section 18 of the act organizing this court is to the same effect. It declares that, “ the supreme court may reverse, “affirm, or modify the judgment or order appealed from, and “ its judgment shall be remitted as soon as practicable, after “ judgment pronounced, to the court below, to be enforced ac- “ cording to law.”

We are of opinion that this court loses jurisdiction of the cause, when the remittitur has been sent to, and filed in, the court below; but that our control over the cause does not cease *195 until that has been done; and so are the decisions of courts, the jurisdiction and powers of which are…

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.