TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hyde v. Boyle

HENRY C. HYDE v. ROBERT BOYLE, PIETRO PIETRONAVE

Hyde v. Boyle, 24 P. 1059 (Cal. 1890)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 7, 1890
Docket
No. 13876
Citations
24 P. 105986 Cal. 3521890 Cal. LEXIS 1032
Syllabus
Bills of Exception's — Settlement — Jurisdiction of Supreme Court. — The supreme court has no jurisdiction to remodel a bill of exceptions generally, by striking matter out of it, etc., but the duty and power of settling statements and bills of exceptions rest generally and properly in the judge of the trial court, and the supreme court will not interfere with such statement or bill except in the case of a refusal by the judge to allow an exception.
Summary
Petition to the Supreme Court for leave to prove an exception. 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

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The Court.

—The petition in this case purports to be one for leave to prove an exception, under section 652 of the Code of Civil Procedure; but it is really a petition to remodel a bill of exceptions, settled and signed by the judge of the trial court, by striking out certain things therein contained. The power of this court in the premises is discussed in Landers v. Landers, 82 Cal. 480 , and other cases. The duty and power of settling statements and bills of exceptions rest generally and properly in the judge of the trial court. This court can interfere with such statement or bill only in the cases provided by statute; and the only case thus provided is found in said section 652. But that section-refers only to a case where the judge has “ refused to allow an exception.” It does not give this court jurisdiction to remodel a bill of exceptions generally, by striking matter out of it, etc., as is prayed for in this petition. The power of this court must be confined within the limits prescribed by the code. The petition is denied.

*353 Paterson, J., concurred in the order denying the petition.

Thornton J., and Works, J., did not participate in the decision.

Rehearing denied.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 15 cases

View all citing references →
1891: 31892: 31900: 21905: 11908: 11913: 21917: 11938: 11946: 118912026peak 1891 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Burns v. Brown166 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1946)
  2. Estate of Dolbeer v. Gray81 P. 1098 (Cal. 1905)
  3. Ryan v. Landis74 P.2d 1179 (Nev. 1938)
  4. Green v. Thornton96 P. 382 (Cal. Ct. App. 1908)
  5. Hansen v. Boise Payette Lumber Co.168 P. 163 (Idaho 1917)
  6. Orama v. Oyanguren19 P.R. Dec. 310 (1913)

Most recent

  1. Burns v. Brown166 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1946)
  2. Ryan v. Landis74 P.2d 1179 (Nev. 1938)
  3. Hansen v. Boise Payette Lumber Co.168 P. 163 (Idaho 1917)
  4. Orama v. Oyanguren19 P.R. 294 (1913)
  5. Orama v. Oyanguren19 P.R. Dec. 310 (1913)
  6. Green v. Thornton96 P. 382 (Cal. Ct. App. 1908)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Landers v. Landers, 23 P. 126 (Cal. 1890) 12

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