gno.law

Heinlen v. Beans

California Supreme Court · No. 11999 · 1887-08-29 · Published · 73 Cal. 240 · 14 P. 855 · 1887 Cal. LEXIS 646

JOHN HEINLEN v. T. ELLARD BEANS

Area
civil
Panel
Thomas B. McFarland (author), James D. Thornton, Sharpstein

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 — McFarland

McFarland, J.

When this case was here upon a legitimate appeal, this court reversed the judgment and directed the court below to enter judgment for defendants. (71 Cal. 295.) The court below entered judgment as directed, which fact is not disputed. From that judgment, which this court directed to be entered, plaintiff now appeals; and respondent moves to dismiss the appeal for thé obvious reason that no appeal lies from such a judgment.

When this court, upon appeal, affirms the judgment of the court below, or directs the entry of a specific judgment, and such judgment is entered by the lower court as directed, the litigation is over and the case ended.

Query: Whether the attempt to appeal in this instance is not a contempt under subdivision 4 of section 1209 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The appeal from the judgment is dismissed. The appeal of appellant from an order of the court below refusing to allow him to amend his complaint after the remittitur had reached that court, is also dismissed. (Kirby v. Superior Court, 68 Cal. 604.)

Thornton, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by