KANE v. UNIVERSAL FILM EXCHANGES (1939)

Upon a hearing of the petition for a transfer of this cause after decision by the District Court of Appeal, we are of the opinion that the showing on the part of appellant in support of its application for a writ of supersedeas was insufficient to justify said court in granting said application. We, however, withhold approval of those statements in the court's opinion which are directed solely to the merits of the order denying appellant's motion for a change of place of trial.

The petition is denied.

I concur generally in the foregoing order, but dissent from that part of the order by which this court purports to ‘withhold approval’ of certain designated ‘statements' which occur in the opinion of the District Court of Appeal. As far as I know, this court is unauthorized to assert its approval or disapproval with respect to an opinion of any other court. In that regard, the only possible source of power is contained in the language which appears in section 4 and 4c, Article VI, of the Constitution of this state; but in neither of such sections of the Constitution is language employed which either expressly or impliedly purports to authorize this court to assume either to approve or to disapprove of any ‘statement’ which may be made by the District Court of Appeal. My views with reference to the authority of this court in a situation such as here is under consideration are more fully stated regarding a similar order that was made by this court in pursuance of a petition to hear an appeal after decision thereof by the District Court of Appeal in the case of Wires v. Litle, 27 Cal.App.2d 240, 245, 80 P.2d 1010, 82 P.2d 388.

PER CURIAM.