22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4a6,This action was dismissed by the court below for want of prosecution upon the motion of two of the defendants, Barnett and Burt. Thereafter, upon motion made by the plaintiffs, and due notice thereof, the court made and entered an order setting aside and vacating its judgment of dismissal, upon the condition attached, that the plaintiffs should pay to the defendants the sum of eighty dollars. From the last-mentioned order this appeal is .prosecuted. The affidavit of merits made by the principal attorney for the plaintiffs is as follows:— By it such circumstances appear as might at least have warranted the judge in hesitating to deny the motion to vacate the judgment of dismissal for want of prosecution of the action. In such cases this court has held it to be permissible that upon proper conditions such a judgment may be set aside. (Watson v. S. F. & H. B. R. R. Co., 41 Cal. 17 -21.) We do not therefore perceive that as to the case in hand the judge below abused the discretion which was. vested in him by law. The order appealed from should be affirmed Searls, C., and Belcher, C. C., concurred. For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the order is affirmed.24:T4d0,

This action was dismissed by the court below for want of prosecution upon the motion of two of the defendants, Barnett and Burt.

Thereafter, upon motion made by the plaintiffs, and due notice thereof, the court made and entered an order setting aside and vacating its judgment of dismissal, upon the condition attached, that the plaintiffs should pay to the defendants the sum of eighty dollars. From the last-mentioned order this appeal is .prosecuted.

The affidavit of merits made by the principal attorney for the plaintiffs is as follows:—

By it such circumstances appear as might at least have warranted the judge in hesitating to deny the motion to vacate the judgment of dismissal for want of prosecution of the action. In such cases this court has held it to be permissible that upon proper conditions such a judgment may be set aside. (Watson v. S. F. & H. B. R. R. Co., 41 Cal. 17 -21.)

We do not therefore perceive that as to the case in hand the judge below abused the discretion which was. vested in him by law.

The order appealed from should be affirmed

Searls, C., and Belcher, C. C., concurred.

For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the order is affirmed.