Court Opinion

ID: 5444565
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-08 18:08:33.590595+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:32:08.198465
License: Public Domain

Thornton, J., dissenting.
I dissent. The rule in this case will so limit the power of the court as to interfere very injuriously with the orderly and proper dispatch of the business. Why should the defendant be compelled to file his answer until the motion to strike out the complaint and dismiss the action is passed on? Non constat that he may be ever called on to answer. The court may dismiss the action by granting his motion, and the labor and expense of preparing an answer might thus be avoided. In my judgment, section 1054 of the Code of Civil Procedure has no application to the case presented here. It only applies to the case where the court makes such an order when there is no ease or preceding pending in his court which authorizes the court to exercise its discretion in granting time. The statute never was intended to limit the discretion of a court to the extent ruled in this case.
I am of the opinion that the court had ample power and jurisdiction to make the orders attacked in this case.