From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Vance

Supreme Court of California
Mar 7, 1891
88 Cal. 262 (Cal. 1891)


         Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County.

         Motion to dismiss appeal.


          Amos H. Carpenter, for Appellant.

          Wilson & Wilson, and A. L. Rhodes, for Respondent.

         JUDGES: In Bank. Sharpstein, J. McFarland, J., De Haven, J., Garoutte, J., Harrison, J., Paterson, J., and Beatty, C. J., concurred.


          SHARPSTEIN, Judge

          [26 P. 102] This appeal is from a judgment in a case of contempt, and the respondent moves to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that an appeal does not lie in such a case, because it is provided by the Code of Civil Procedure that "the judgment and orders of the court or judge, made in cases of contempt, are final and conclusive." In Tyler v. Connolly , 65 Cal. 30, the question is carefully considered, and the conclusion reached that no appeal lies from a judgment imposing a fine of more than three hundred dollars for a contempt of court, expressly overruling People v. O'Neil , 47 Cal. 109. Tyler v. Connolly , 65 Cal. 30, was followed in Sanchez v. Newman , 70 Cal. 210.

         We see no ground for disturbing the rule laid down in Tyler v. Connolly , 65 Cal. 30.

         Appeal dismissed.

Summaries of

In re Vance

Supreme Court of California
Mar 7, 1891
88 Cal. 262 (Cal. 1891)
Case details for

In re Vance

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of D. M. VANCE

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Mar 7, 1891


88 Cal. 262 (Cal. 1891)
26 P. 101

Citing Cases

Gale v. Tuolumne County Water Co.

This court has repeatedly held that by reason of its finality and conclusiveness, the judgment in a contempt…

Butler v. Butler

It is the law generally (see note to Mullin v. People, 15 Colo. 437 [22 Am.St.Rep. [414] 417, 9 L.R.A. 566]),…