wholesome rule in California

2021(Asher, supra, 26 Cal.App.2d at p. 407 .) The court explicitly premised its analysis on a stipulation entered in the trial court that the taxpayer “ ‘was not, during said period, and is not now, and never has been engaged in the business of selling tangible personal property at retail or otherwise.’ ” (Ibid.) The court reversed the trial court based solely on public policy grounds, applying “the wholesome rule to refuse to lend the aid of the court to restore property acquired and claimed as the proceeds of illegal gaming.” (Id. at pp. 413-414.) In the course of this analysis, the court quoted

2021(Asher, supra, 26 Cal.App.2d at p. 407 .) The court explicitly premised its analysis on a stipulation entered in the trial court that the taxpayer “ ‘was not, during said period, and is not now, and never has been engaged in the business of selling tangible personal property at retail or otherwise.’ ” (Ibid.) The court reversed the trial court based solely on public policy grounds, applying “the wholesome rule to refuse to lend the aid of the court to restore property acquired and claimed as the proceeds of illegal gaming.” (Id. at pp. 413-414.) In the course of this analysis, the court quoted

2021(Asher, supra, 26 Cal.App.2d at p. 407 .) The court explicitly premised its analysis on a stipulation entered in the trial court that the taxpayer “ ‘was not, during said period, and is not now, and never has been engaged in the business of selling tangible personal property at retail or otherwise.’ ” (Ibid.) The court reversed the trial court based solely on public policy grounds, applying “the wholesome rule to refuse to lend the aid of the court to restore property acquired and claimed as the proceeds of illegal gaming.” (Id. at pp. 413-414.) In the course of this analysis, the court quoted

1953Bank, 34 Cal.App.2d 383 [ 93 P.2d 572 ], in which the court quoted from Stewart v. Butler, 27 Misc. 708 [ 59 N.Y.S. 573, 576 ], with respect to vexatious litigation—quoting in turn from an English decision—“when such a litigant is found I think it a most wholesome doctrine that any court should have the power of stopping such a litigation. ’ ’ None of the orders made by the trial court in denying the various motions made by appellant after judgment are appealable.

1953Bank, 34 Cal.App.2d 383 [ 93 P.2d 572 ], in which the court quoted from Stewart v. Butler, 27 Misc. 708 [ 59 N.Y.S. 573, 576 ], with respect to vexatious litigation—quoting in turn from an English decision—“when such a litigant is found I think it a most wholesome doctrine that any court should have the power of stopping such a litigation. ’ ’ None of the orders made by the trial court in denying the various motions made by appellant after judgment are appealable.

1953Bank, 34 Cal.App.2d 383 [ 93 P.2d 572 ], in which the court quoted from Stewart v. Butler, 27 Misc. 708 [ 59 N.Y.S. 573, 576 ], with respect to vexatious litigation—quoting in turn from an English decision—“when such a litigant is found I think it a most wholesome doctrine that any court should have the power of stopping such a litigation. ’ ’ None of the orders made by the trial court in denying the various motions made by appellant after judgment are appealable.

1953Bank, 34 Cal.App.2d 383 [ 93 P.2d 572 ], in which the court quoted from Stewart v. Butler, 27 Misc. 708 [ 59 N.Y.S. 573, 576 ], with respect to vexatious litigation—quoting in turn from an English decision—“when such a litigant is found I think it a most wholesome doctrine that any court should have the power of stopping such a litigation. ’ ’ None of the orders made by the trial court in denying the various motions made by appellant after judgment are appealable.

1941Railway, 134 Cal. 494 [ 66 Pac. 672 ].) The consideration by the court of such improper remarks of a juror “would defeat the very purpose of the wholesome rule adopted in the interest of public policy.” (Crabtree v. Western Pacific Railroad Co., 33 Cal. App. (2d) 35 [ 90 Pac. (2d) 835 ].) Appellant attempts to overcome the force of section 657 by her arguments: (1) that the court did not act upon her motion for a new trial, and (2) that the court received and filed the affidavits which gives to them the value of legal proof which, not being denied, establishes the facts recited by them.

1941Railway, 134 Cal. 494 [ 66 Pac. 672 ].) The consideration by the court of such improper remarks of a juror “would defeat the very purpose of the wholesome rule adopted in the interest of public policy.” (Crabtree v. Western Pacific Railroad Co., 33 Cal. App. (2d) 35 [ 90 Pac. (2d) 835 ].) Appellant attempts to overcome the force of section 657 by her arguments: (1) that the court did not act upon her motion for a new trial, and (2) that the court received and filed the affidavits which gives to them the value of legal proof which, not being denied, establishes the facts recited by them.

1941Railway, 134 Cal. 494 [ 66 Pac. 672 ].) The consideration by the court of such improper remarks of a juror “would defeat the very purpose of the wholesome rule adopted in the interest of public policy.” (Crabtree v. Western Pacific Railroad Co., 33 Cal. App. (2d) 35 [ 90 Pac. (2d) 835 ].) Appellant attempts to overcome the force of section 657 by her arguments: (1) that the court did not act upon her motion for a new trial, and (2) that the court received and filed the affidavits which gives to them the value of legal proof which, not being denied, establishes the facts recited by them.

1934A. 8) 206 Fed. 877 , 884: ‘We adhere to the wholesome rule “which assures a trial of the merits of” such claims “in a plenary suit at law or in equity under *283 the rules of pleading, of practice, and of evidence, that wisdom and experience have found most conducive to the discovery of the truth and the administration of justice”.

1920(Miller v. Newton et al., 23 Cal. 554 .) Our code provisions now give statutory authority for this wholesome doctrine. [7] The document introduced into evidence and relied upon as a statement of account, so as to take the claim out of the operation of the statute of limitation, was addressed to Dr. C.

1902Nothing that was *588 said in the recent cases of Clark v. Bever, 139 U. S. 96 ; Fogg v. Blair, 139 U. S. 118 , or Handly v. Stutz, 139 U. S. 417 , was intended to overrule or qualify in any way the wholesome principle adopted by this court in the earlier cases, especially as applied to the original subscribers to stock.” Some few cases are cited from the state reports which, it is claimed, held a different view.

1902Nothing that was *588 said in the recent cases of Clark v. Bever, 139 U. S. 96 ; Fogg v. Blair, 139 U. S. 118 , or Handly v. Stutz, 139 U. S. 417 , was intended to overrule or qualify in any way the wholesome principle adopted by this court in the earlier cases, especially as applied to the original subscribers to stock.” Some few cases are cited from the state reports which, it is claimed, held a different view.

1902Nothing that was *588 said in the recent cases of Clark v. Bever, 139 U. S. 96 ; Fogg v. Blair, 139 U. S. 118 , or Handly v. Stutz, 139 U. S. 417 , was intended to overrule or qualify in any way the wholesome principle adopted by this court in the earlier cases, especially as applied to the original subscribers to stock.” Some few cases are cited from the state reports which, it is claimed, held a different view.

1895Co., 66 Cal. 163 .) But the plaintiff in support of her appeal claims that this wholesome rule has no application to this case, for the reason, as she contends, that the cause of action stated in her suit against the city and that stated against these defendants are not the same, and that the defendants in the two actions are in no sense joint tort-feasors.