TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Dellaringa v. Hooker

LUVISA DELLARINGA, Appellant, v. E. T. HOOKER Et Al., Respondents

Dellaringa v. Hooker, 161 P. 276 (Cal. Ct. App. 1916)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Court of Appeal · State Appellate Courts
Decided
October 12, 1916
Docket
No. Civ. No. 1389.
Judges
James
Citations
161 P. 27631 Cal. App. 6671916 Cal. App. LEXIS 394
Headnotes
Dismissal of Action—Order Setting Aside—Appeal—Affirmance of Order.—Upon an appeal taken from- an order setting aside an order dismissing an action entered upon the written request of the attorneys for the plaintiff, the order appealed from must be affirmed, where the record shows that the defendant prior to the order of dismissal had filed an answer asking for affirmative relief, and no stipulation authorizing the dismissal is furnished.
Summary
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — James

*668 JAMES, J.

This appeal was taken from an order of the superior court made on the motion of defendant E. T. Hooker. This order directed that an order of dismissal of the action theretofore entered upon the written request of the attorneys for .the plaintiff, be set aside. The action was to quiet title and defendant Hooker had answered prior to the request made for the dismissal of the action, in which answer he set up ownership in the property in controversy and asked for an adjudication to be made in his favor. A clerk’s transcript was prepared under the alternative method of appeal, and that is the only document which has been filed in this court. At the time set for oral argument, no counsel for appellant appeared, and counsel for respondent being present stated that the controversy had been settled and that only moot questions were therefore now involved. However, the appellant, upon being advised of the suggestion made, has failed to furnish any stipulation upon which to authorize the court to enter an order of dismissal. We are left without any argument offered by the appellant to sustain the appeal taken. An examination of the record discloses to our minds no reason why the order of the court should be disturbed.

The order is affirmed.

Conrey, P. J., and Shaw, 'J., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1932: 119322026peak 1932 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hough v. Wright16 P.2d 301 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932)

Most recent

  1. Hough v. Wright16 P.2d 301 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list