Case Name: In the Matter of D. M. VANCE
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1891-03-07
Citations: 88 Cal. 262
Docket Number: No. 13594
Parties: In the Matter of D. M. VANCE.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 88
Pages: 262–262

Head Matter:
[No. 13594.
In Bank.
March 7, 1891.]
In the Matter of D. M. VANCE.
Contempt —-Appeal—Dismissal. — No appeal lies from a judgment rendered in a case of contempt, and an attempted appeal therefrom will be dismissed.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County.
Motion to dismiss appeal. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Amos H. Carpenter, for Appellant.
Wilson & Wilson, and A. L. Rhodes, for Respondent.

Opinion:
Sharpstein, J.
This appeal is from a judgment in a
case of contempt, and the respondent moves to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that an appeal does not lie in such a case, because it is provided by the Code of Civil Procedure that " the judgment and orders of the court or judge, made in cases of contempt, are final and conclusive." In Tyler v. Connolly, 65 Cal. 30, the question is carefully considered, and the conclusion reached that no appeal lies from a judgment imposing a fine of more than three hundred dollars for a contempt of court, expressly overruling People v. O'Neil, 47 Cat. 109. Tyler v. Connolly, 65 Cal. 30, was followed in Sanchez v. Newman, 70 Cal. 210.
We see no ground for disturbing the rule laid down in Tyler v. Connolly, 65 Cal. 30.
Appeal dismissed.
McFarland, J., De Haven, J., Garoutte, J., Harrison, J., Paterson, J., and Beatty, C. J., concurred.