Case ID: cal_63/html/0160-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[Department Two.
    February 15, 1883.]
    LA SOCIETE FRANCAISE D’EPARGNES ET DE PREVOYANCE MUTUELLE, Respondent, v. MATTIE A. BEARDSLEE et al., J. L. L. F. WARREN, Appellant.
    Judgment by Consent—Appeal.—The Supreme Court will not entertain an appeal from, a judgment entered by the consent of the party prosecuting the appeal.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing to modify the judgment.
    The action was unlawful detainer. The defendant Beardslee was a tenant of the plaintiff, and sublet to defendants McCarthy and Warren. Moses G. Cobb as attorney for all the defendants entered into a stipulation that judgment be entered against them for the amount of the rent due, and for restitution of the premises, in consideration of which plaintiff granted a stay of proceedings, and waived its right to have the damages trebled.
    After the entry of the judgment the defendant Warren made application to the court to modify the judgment so as to relieve him from liability, on the ground that he was only a sub-tenant, and was made a party in order that he as sub-tenant might redeem the term of Beardslee. The court denied the application, and subsequently Warren again applied to the court for a modification of the judgment as to him, on the ground that Moses Gr. Cobb had no authority to appear for him and make the stipulation referred to. The motion was supported by the affidavit of Warren, Cobb, and Moore the clerk of Cobb. The court denied the motion.
    
      Moses G. Cobb, for Appellant.
    
      Stanly, Stoney & Mayes, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.

There are two appeals in this cause prosecuted by defendant Warren; one from the judgment, and one from an order made after judgment, denying Warren’s motion to modify the same.

The judgment was taken and entered against’ Warren by his consent. This disposes of the appeal from the judgment. We will not hear an appeal from a judgment entered by the consent of the party prosecuting the appeal. The judgment must be affirmed.

As to the appeal from the order denying the motion of Warren above stated, we are of opinion from the papers used on the motion that the court was justified in denying the motion aforesaid.

Judgment and order affirmed.