Case Name: MARY GERTRUDE COCHRAN, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SONOMA COUNTY, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1918-09-30
Citations: 179 Cal. 58
Docket Number: S. F. No. 8891
Parties: MARY GERTRUDE COCHRAN, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SONOMA COUNTY, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 179
Pages: 58–59

Head Matter:
[ S. F. No. 8891.
In Bank.
September 30, 1918.]
MARY GERTRUDE COCHRAN, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SONOMA COUNTY, Respondent.
Soldiers and Sailors Belief Act—Applicability to Previously Commenced Actions.—In denying the application for a writ of mandate herein the action of the court is not to be taken as indicating an opinion that the provisions of the Soldiers and Sailors Belief Act' of March 8, 1918, providing for a stay of proceedings prior to judgment, are applicable to actions commenced prior to the passage of the act.
APPLICATION for a Writ of Mandate originally made to the Supreme Court to compel the Superior Court of Sonoma County to proceed with the trial of an action in the absence of the defendant. Denied.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
R. M. Barrett, for Petitioner.

Opinion:
THE COURT.
We are of the opinion that the application for a writ of mandate should be denied. Our action is not to be taken, however, as indicating an opinion that the provisions of the Soldiers and Sailors. Relief Act of March 8, 1918, providing for a stay of proceedings prior to judgment,' are applicable to actions commenced prior to the passage of the act. We are not prepared to hold that the superior court was guilty of any abuse of discretion in refusing to proceed with the trial of-the action at this time, in view of the showing made as to the necessary absence of the defendant, entirely independent of the provisions of the act referred to. In the event of such a change in the existing conditions as would make further refusal to proceed with the trial an abuse of discretion, another application may be made to the superior court.
The application for a writ of mandate is denied.