Stierlen v. Stierlen

Decided April 2, 1912

California Court of Appeal · decided 1912-04-02

<p>APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco; and from an order denying a new trial. Geo. A. Sturtevant, Judge.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Relies on 13 Cal. App. 59 - George Frank Co. v. Leopold & Ferron Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1912-04-02

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently March 1962

6 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

THE COURT.

¶1In denying the application for a hearing in this court after decision by the district court of appeal for the first district, it is proper to .say that the following paragraph in the opinion, namely: “In this state a void judgment is not governed by section 473, Code of Civil Procedure—our corresponding section to the North Dakota section above cited (George Frank Co. v. Leopold & Ferron Co., 13 Cal. App. 59, [108 Pac. 878])” is not necessary to the decision. In so far as this may be construed as applying to any judgment not void on its face—viz., on an inspection of the judgment-roll—we doubt its correctness, and withhold our approval therefrom.

¶2The application for a hearing in this court is denied.