MURPHY v. MURPHY (1936)

Supreme Court of California.

MURPHY v. MURPHY et ux.

Sac. 4953.

Decided: March 17, 1936

Lulu Mignon Murphy, in pro. per. John R. Cronin, of Stockton, for respondents.

This is an appeal by plaintiff from an order of the superior court dismissing an action under section 583 of the Code of Civil Procedure because not brought to trial within 5 years after filing thereof. The action was filed October 31, 1928. The notice of motion to dismiss was given December 27, 1934, and the order of dismissal entered January 3, 1935. Plaintiff contends that the amendment of August, 1933, to section 583 (St.1933, p. 853), making the 5-year period run from the filing of the action instead of from the filing of the answer, is invalid where retroactively applied to her action. This matter has been fully considered by this court in other decisions. The record shows that plaintiff had a period of 71 days from the date of the amendment to bring the action to trial, and the motion to dismiss was not made until over a year after the amendment was passed. In view of these facts, we think the trial court did not err in applying the amended statute to her suit. See Rosefield Packing Co. v. Superior Court (Cal.Sup.) 47 P.(2d) 716.

The order is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network