Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta In re Vance 88 Cal. 262

← Cases

In re Vance

88 Cal. 262 Court Cal. Decision date 1891-03-07 Docket No. 13594 English

Delivered by Sharpstein, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 262
[No. 13594.
In Bank.
March 7, 1891.]
In the Matter of D. M. VANCE.

Headnote

Contempt —-Appeal—Dismissal. — No appeal lies from a judgment rendered in a case of contempt, and an attempted appeal therefrom will be dismissed.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County.
Motion to dismiss appeal. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Amos H. Carpenter, for Appellant.
Wilson & Wilson, and A. L. Rhodes, for Respondent.

This appeal is from a judgment in a

case of contempt, and the respondent moves to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that an appeal does not lie in such a case, because it is provided by the Code of Civil Procedure that “ the judgment and orders of the court or judge, made in cases of contempt, are final and conclusive.” In Tyler v. Connolly, 65 Cal. 30 , the question is carefully considered, and the conclusion reached that no appeal lies from a judgment imposing a fine of more than three hundred dollars for a contempt of court, expressly overruling People v. O’Neil, 47 Cat. 109. Tyler v. Connolly, 65 Cal. 30 , was followed in Sanchez v. Newman, 70 Cal. 210 .

We see no ground for disturbing the rule laid down in Tyler v. Connolly, 65 Cal. 30 .

Appeal dismissed.

McFarland, J., De Haven, J., Garoutte, J., Harrison, J., Paterson, J., and Beatty, C. J., concurred.

Cases cited