Chamberlin v. Reed
Before: Cope
Synopsis
Whebe an appeal, regularly taken, is dismissed for want of prosecution, the dismissal operates as an affirmance of the judgment below, and a second appeal cannot be allowed.
The only mode of avoiding the consequences of such dismissal is to move, during the term or before the remittitur has gone out, to vacate the order of dismissal and reinstate the cause.
Cope, J. delivered the opinion of the Court Field, C. J. concurring.
Where an appeal regularly taken is dismissed for want of prosecution, the dismissal operates as an affirmance of the judgment, and a second appeal cannot be allowed. The only mode of avoiding the consequences of such dismissal is to move, during the term or before the remittitur has gone out, to vacate the order and reinstate the cause. The appeal must be dismissed, and it is so ordered.
See Karth v. Light (15 Cal).
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)