From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pardy v. Montgomery

Supreme Court of California
Nov 2, 1888
77 Cal. 326 (Cal. 1888)

Summary

In Pardy v. Montgomery, 77 Cal. 326, it was decided that "the court had power to dismiss the action for want of prosecution (see Code Civ. Proc., sec. 581), and, there being no showing to the contrary, we must presume that the court below exercised its power properly and within the rules prescribed by law."

Summary of this case from People v. Jefferds

Opinion

         Rehearing denied.

         Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco.

         COUNSEL:

         W. T. Baggett, and Samuel T. Birdsall, for Appellant.

          W. S. Goodfellow, for Respondents.


         JUDGES: In Bank. Thornton, J. Searls, C. J., Works, J., Paterson, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.

         OPINION

          THORNTON, Judge

         We cannot take notice of the affidavits in the transcript, showing, as claimed by the appellant, the circumstances under which this action was dismissed by the court below, for the reason that it is not shown in any mode that such affidavits were used on the hearing of the application in that court.

         The court below had power to dismiss the action for want of prosecution (see Code Civ. Proc., sec. 581), and there being no showing to the contrary, we must presume that the court below exercised its power properly and within the rules prescribed by law.

         Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

Pardy v. Montgomery

Supreme Court of California
Nov 2, 1888
77 Cal. 326 (Cal. 1888)

In Pardy v. Montgomery, 77 Cal. 326, it was decided that "the court had power to dismiss the action for want of prosecution (see Code Civ. Proc., sec. 581), and, there being no showing to the contrary, we must presume that the court below exercised its power properly and within the rules prescribed by law."

Summary of this case from People v. Jefferds
Case details for

Pardy v. Montgomery

Case Details

Full title:GEORGE PARDY, Appellant, v. CHARLES MONTGOMERY et al., Respondents

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Nov 2, 1888

Citations

77 Cal. 326 (Cal. 1888)
19 P. 530

Citing Cases

Solomon v. Solomon

Respondent seeks to defend the order by the statement that counsel had in his possession an affidavit and a…

In re Winchester

This evidence was not properly before the appellate court. ( Broads v. Mead and Cook, 159 Cal. 765, 768-769 […