Porco v. State Board of Barber Examiners
PORCO v. STATE BOARD OF BARBER EXAMINERS
- Outcome
- dismissed — Dismissed.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Smith (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 — Smith
SMITH, C.
This is an appeal from a judgment in a suit for mandamus, requiring the defendant to issue to plaintiff a barber’s license, as required by act of February 20, 1901, “To regulate the practice of barbering,” etc.: Stats. 1901, p. 15, c. 25. But the act in question has been repealed by an act of the legislature approved March 16, 1903 (Stats. 1903, p. 166, c. 151), which took effect on its passage; and the defendant has thus ceased to exist, leaving no successor in' interest or in obligation. It follows that the action, which “is deemed to be pending .... until its final determination on appeal” (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1049), was thereby abated (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 385; Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, “Abatement,” p. 6; Green v. Watkins, 6 Wheat. (19 U. S.) 261, 5 L. Ed. 256), and, with it, the judgment and this appeal. The appeal should therefore be dismissed, without costs (Estate of Baby, 87 Cal. 200, 22 Am. St. Rep. 239, 25 Pac. 405; Estate of Shaver, 131 Cal. 221, 63 Pac. 340; Bienenfeld v. Fresno Milling Co., 82 Cal. 426, 22 Pac. 1113), and we. so advise.
We concur: Gray, C.; Haynes, C.
PER CURIAM.—For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the appeal herein is dismissed.
Cites, in this corpus
- Shaver v. Tunstead S.F. No. 2421. · 1900-12-29
- In re Estate of Baby No. 13902 · 1890-12-19
- Bienenfeld v. Fresno Milling Co. No. 13378 · 1890-01-02