Rucker v. Superior Court

CONREY, P. J.

Petitioners, Rucker and wife, have appealed to the Supreme Court of California from a judgment rendered against them as defendants in • an action for the quieting of title to certain real property. After serving and filing their notice of appeal petitioners applied to the Superior Court by motion for an order allowing them to perfect their appeal

in forma pauperis,

and particularly for an order that the clerk of the Superior Court furnish to appel

[685]

lants, without cost, the necessary clerk’s Wnseript on appeal and that the court reporter who acted as such reporter at the trial of the action, furnish to appellants a reporter’s transcript of the proceedings of the trial, also without cost to appellant. The. motion was supported by affidavits of facts tending to prove that appellants were in a condition of poverty and were unable to pay in advance the costs on appeal. The judge to whom said application was made denied the motion “upon the ground that the above-entitled eases have been duly and regularly tried in above court, and judgments adverse to defendants (petitioners herein) have been duly filed, docketed and entered therein, and upon the further ground that this court is without jurisdiction to grant the relief prayed for. ’ ’

In

Martin

v.

Superior Court,

176 Cal. 289 [L. R. A. 1918B, 313, 168 Pac. 135], the right of a Superior Court to authorize the prosecution of ah action

in forma pauperis

in that court was sustained. The ruling there made was based upon the rights of the courts of common law to admit to sue

in forma pauperis,

such poor persons as had not ability to pay the expenses incidental to the prosecution of actions to enforce their rights. It is not shown that this right extended to appeals or writs of error. The right of appeal is a creature of written law, and finds its authority in the Constitution and statutes of the state.