TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Guardianship of Degnan

In the Matter of the Guardianship of the Estate and Person of BRIDGET DEGNAN, an Incompetent Person. BRIDGET DEGNAN, Appellant, v. THOMAS P. DEGNAN, Guardian, Respondent

Guardianship of Degnan, 64 P. 485 (Cal. 1901)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 19, 1901
Docket
No. S.F. No. 2678.
Judges
THE COURT.
Citations
64 P. 485132 Cal. 2601901 Cal. LEXIS 1044
Headnotes
Appeal — Dismissal at Appellant’s Bequest — Motion of Bespondent’s Attorneys.—Though the orderly and courteous manner of moving to dismiss an appeal is by the appellant, through his or her attorney, or substituted attorney, yet the right of the appellant to dismiss the appeal will not be denied because the motion is made by respondent’s attorneys, upon affidavits showing the desire of the appellant for such dismissal, where the attorney taking the appeal has no special contract or charge upon the property in controversy. Id. — Suggestion of Unpbofessional Conduct of Attorney.—A suggestion of impropriety or unprofessional conduct of one of the attorneys connected with the matter of the motion of the respondent’s attorneys to dismiss the appeal, cannot be considered, upon the motion, or at all, except upon the preferment of charges properly formulated.
Summary
MOTION to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco appointing a guardian of an alleged incompetent person. James M. Troutt, Judge. 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

THE COURT.

—This is a motion to dismiss the appeal of Bridget Degnan, based upon her own affidavit and the supporting affidavits of others, and pressed before the court by respondent’s attorneys. It -may be conceded that the regular, orderly, and courteous method of procedure would have been for the client to give notice to her own attorney of her desire that her appeal should be dismissed, and in the event of his refusal, after notice,, to procure a substitution of attorneys, and through the new attorney bring the matter to the attention of the court. But the fact that the mode here adopted is unusual does not deprive the appellant of her right to a dismissal, when it is *261 made to appear to the court, as in this ease it is, that such is her desire; it not being contended that her attorney has any special contract or lien upon any property in controversy entitling him to continue the prosecution. By way of intimation, rather than accusation, it has been suggested that there has been some impropriety or unprofessional conduct upon the part of some one of the attorneys connected with this matter. If this be so, its consideration has no place in this determination, and the matter can receive attention only after the preferment of charges properly formulated.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1913: 11921: 11943: 11962: 11967: 219132026peak 1967 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Cotton-Macauley Co. v. Deshields198 P. 1026 (Cal. Ct. App. 1921)
  2. Hudson v. American Founders Life Ins. Co. of Denver377 P.2d 391 (Colo. 1962)
  3. Kullgren v. Navy Gas & Supply Co.135 P.2d 1007 (Colo. 1943)
  4. United States v. Gates376 F.2d 65 (10th Cir. 1967)
  5. Holmes v. Jewett55 Colo. 187 (1913)
  6. United States v. Charles C. Gates, Jr., June S376 F.2d 65 (10th Cir. 1967)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Charles C. Gates, Jr., June S376 F.2d 65 (10th Cir. 1967)
  2. United States v. Gates376 F.2d 65 (10th Cir. 1967)
  3. Hudson v. American Founders Life Ins. Co. of Denver377 P.2d 391 (Colo. 1962)
  4. Kullgren v. Navy Gas & Supply Co.135 P.2d 1007 (Colo. 1943)
  5. Cotton-Macauley Co. v. Deshields198 P. 1026 (Cal. Ct. App. 1921)
  6. Holmes v. Jewett55 Colo. 187 (1913)

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