gno.law

Casseta v. Del Frate

California Court of Appeal · Docket No. 7890. · 1931-04-09 · Published · 298 P. 55 · 113 Cal. App. 297 · 1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 925

JOHN CASSETA Et Al., Respondents, v. GEORGE DEL FRATE, Defendant; A. J. HENNESSY Et Al., Appellants

Area
civil

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

THE COURT.

Appellants were attorneys of record for the plaintiffs in the above-entitled action. On November 7, 1930, the trial court on motion by plaintiffs made its order substituting other attorneys, and the present appeal was taken from the order by the attorneys first mentioned. The plaintiffs have moved to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that the same is frivolous.

A client has an absolute right to change his attorney at any time if the latter has no interest in the subject matter of the action (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 284;

Lee v. Superior Court, 112 Cal. 354 [44 Pac. 666];

Gage v. Atwater, 136 Cal. 170 [68 Pac. 581]). But in the present case appellants claim that under their contract of employment they acquired an interest in the subject matter of the suit. This question must be determined from the construction to be given the contract, and involves a consideration of the merits of the appeal. Under such circumstances it is well settled that a motion to dismiss is in substance but a motion to advance the cause for hearing and should be denied without prejudice to the future consideration of the appeal upon the merits (Randall v. Duff, 105 Cal. 271 [38 Pac. 739];

Chino etc. Land Co.

v. Hamaker, 171 Cal. 689 [154 Pac. 850];

Jenks v. Lurie, 195 Cal. 582 [243 Pac. 370]).

The motion is denied.

Cites, in this corpus