Berry v. Chaplin, 74 Cal. App. 2d 652 (1946)

Citation: Berry v. Chaplin, 74 Cal. App. 2d 652 (1946)
Parent Document: Berry v. Chaplin, 74 Cal. App. 2d 652 (1946)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 1946-05-27
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2616982/berry-v-chaplin/ ↗

Full Text

863 chars

Since the stipulation and the purported order approving it are of no effect there was no necessity that an application be made on behalf of the minor for relief therefrom. In connection with his argument that the stipulation and the accompanying order purporting to approve it constituted a consent to a dismissal of the action upon the happening of the events provided for in the stipulation, defendant cites Pacific Paving Co. v. Vizelich, 2 Cal.App. 515 [83 P. 459]; Moffitt v. Jordan, 127 Cal. 628 [60 P. 175]; Brown v. Superior Court, 10 Cal.App. 2d 365 [52 P.2d 256], and Webster v. Webster, 216 Cal. 485 [14 P.2d 522], The rights of a minor were not involved *661in any of said cases and whatever may be found in the opinions in reference to applications for relief from stipulations is inapplicable to the instant case for the reasons hereinbefore stated.

Other Sections in This Document (106)

Full Text