Parker v. Altschul
C. H. PARKER v. LUDWIG ALTSCHUL
- 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:
The decree recites that the action was dismissed as to some of the defendants. If any of the other defendants had objected to such dismissal, it would seem upon the authority of Clark v. Porter, 53 Cal. 409; Diggins v. Reay, 54 Cal. 525; Harney v. Applegate, 57 Cal. 205; Tobleman v. Roper, 7 P. C. L. J. 561, that the objection would have been well taken. But for anything appearing to the contrary such dismissal may have been consented to by the appellant.
All presumptions are in favor of the correctness of the proceedings of courts of general jurisdiction, and as the consent of the defendants would have justified the order of the Court, we must presume that such consent was given, there being nothing in the record to show that it was not.
Judgment affirmed.
Cites, in this corpus
- Harney v. Appelgate No. 6,580 · 1881-07-01
- Diggins v. Reay No. 5,807 · 1880-07-01
- Clark v. Porter No. 5831 · 1879-07-01
Cited by
- Kelly v. Liddicoat Civ. 10868 · 1939-11-22
- Brown v. Caldwell Civ. No. 775. · 1910-03-10
- Galvin v. Palmer S.F. No. 1900. · 1901-10-29
- Von Schmidt v. Von Schmidt No. 15574 · 1894-11-27
- Cockrill v. Clyma 18099 · 1893-04-11
- Paige v. Roeding No. 13738 · 1892-10-25
- Lyons v. Roach No. 12021 · 1890-05-03