Sanchez v. Newman
California Supreme Court
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County dismissing a proceeding for contempt. The proceeding was brought to punish the defendant Newman for an alleged' contempt in re-entering upon real property from which he had been ejected under a writ of restitution upon a judgment in the case rendered on the 24th of February, 1873. The proceeding was commenced on the 10th of April, 1882. The court dismissed the proceeding on the ground that it was barred by…
Read the full summary
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County dismissing a proceeding for contempt. The proceeding was brought to punish the defendant Newman for an alleged' contempt in re-entering upon real property from which he had been ejected under a writ of restitution upon a judgment in the case rendered on the 24th of February, 1873. The proceeding was commenced on the 10th of April, 1882. The court dismissed the proceeding on the ground that it was barred by section 336 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and therefore the court had no jurisdiction. The further facts are stated in the…
1Opinion of the CourtThornton, J.
This is an appeal from an order in a proceeding for contempt against one B. Newman. By the order referred to, the proceeding against Newman was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. In Tyler v. Connolly, 65 Cal. 28, it was held that there is no appeal from a judgment in a case of contempt. We find nothing in this case which takes it out of the rule laid down in the case cited. For the reasons given in Tyler v. Connolly, we are of opinion that there can be no appeal -here. The appeal must therefore be dismissed, and it is so ordered.
Sharpstein, J., and McKee, J., concurred.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Tyler v. ConnollyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
3Cited by5 opinions
- In re the Estate of WittmeierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Devine v. DevineCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
- In re VanceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Butler v. ButlerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
- Natoma Water & Min. Co. v. HancockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894