Jansen v. Superior Court
JOSEPH M. JANSEN, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY Et Al., Respondents
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Frederick W. Houser (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 — Houser
HOUSER, J.
Mandamus.
The question presented by this proceeding is whether, after notice of appeal, given by a husband—appellant, from an interlocutory judgment in a divorce action rendered against him, the trial court may legally refuse to settle the reporter’s transcript on appeal for the sole reason that the appellant is guilty of contempt "of court in refusing to comply with an order of *719 said court by which he was directed to pay to the plaintiff (respondent in the appeal) a specified sum of money to enable her to defend as against such appeal.
On the authority of the cases of Manriquez v. Superior Court, 199 Cal. 749 [251 Pac. 1118], and Archer v. Superior Court, 81 Cal. App. 742 [254 Pac. 939], the question should be answered in the negative. It follows that a peremptory writ of mandate should issue from this court directing respondents Superior Court and Douglas L. Edmonds, as Judge, thereof, to proceed in accordance with the provisions of the code and the statutes relating to the settlement of transcripts on appeal, without reference to the fact of whether or not the appellant is in contempt of court as hereinbefore noted. So ordered.
Conrey, P. J., concurred.
York, J., absent.
Cites, in this corpus
- Archer v. Superior Court Docket No. 5771. · 1927-03-16
- Manriquez v. Superior Court Docket No. L.A. 9591. · 1926-12-09
Cited by
- Turnbull v. Superior Court Docket No. 8698. · 1932-09-21