Dellaringa v. Hooker
LUVISA DELLARINGA, Appellant, v. E. T. HOOKER Et Al., Respondents
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Kern County
- Trial judge
- Paul W. Bennett
- Outcome
- affirmed — The order is affirmed.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — 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.
Cited by
- Hough v. Wright Docket No. 8546. · 1932-11-26