stands on demurrer to the complaint.-Mowry v. Weisenborn, 137 Cal. 110, 69 Pac. 971.

[z] It cannot be said there was any abuse of discretion in dismissing an action for want of prosecution, where demurrer was filed to complaint, and set for hearing in 1890, but hearing was continued for plaintiff to employ an attorney in place of one who had died, and one was not employed till 1896, and after a motion to dismiss, which was denied, and no steps to have demurrer disposed of were taken till 1899, when notice was given that demurrer would be heard on a certain day, and on the next day the motion to dismiss was made, and this, though from 1896 to 1899 the department in which the case was pending was engaged in trial of criminal cases, and the law and motion calendar of civil cases there pending was not called; it not appearing that the judge was requested to hear the demurrer, or that effort to have the case transferred was made. Mowry v. Weisenborn, 137 Cal. 110, 69 Pac. 971.

[aa] Defendant, though personally served with summons, did not personally appear until several years later, but there was placed on file on his behalf, within ten days after service of summons on him, what purported to be an appearance for him by a demurrer to the complaint, signed by attorneys of the court; and defendant never intimated that such attorneys had not in fact been authorized to appear. Held, that under Code of Civil Procedure, section 1014, providing that the defendant appears when he answers, demurs, or gives the plaintiff written notice of appearance, or when an attorney gives notice of appearance for him, the court was not warranted in finding that there was no appearance made by the defendant, on a motion to dismiss, under Code of Civil Procedure, section 581, subdivision 7, for failure to return the summons within three years if appearance has not been made by the defendant.-Pacific Paving Co. v. Vizelich, 141 Cal. 4, 74 Pac. 352.

[bb] Where defendant, in whose favor the court announced that he should give judg ment, failed to file findings or have them ordered, or to give any notice of decision, and plaintiff was ready to try the case, it was error to dismiss for want of prosecution. Pardy v. Montgomery, 18 Pac. 330.

[ce] Action of court in dismissing action for want of prosecution held not an abuse of discretion.-Marks v. Keenan (Cal. Sup.), 82 Pac. 772.

[dd] An action should not be dismissed under Code of Civil Procedure, section 581, subdivision 3, for plaintiff's failure to appear on the trial, except on proof of five days' notice of trial required by section 594.Dean's Estate, In re, 87 Pac. 13.

FOR AUTHORITIES FROM OTHER STATES:

See 14 Cyc. 443, 448; 17 Cent. Dig., cols. 136-150, §§ 140-152.

§ 37. Dismissal After Continuance by Con

sent.

[a] An order of dismissal, made during the term, after it is understood by the attorneys of both parties that the cause has been continued for the term, is irregular, and must be set aside on a proper showing.-Bensley v. Ellis, 39 Cal. 309.

§ 38. Dismissal by Court on Its Own Motion. [a] A court will, on its own motion, dismiss an action which contravenes public policy, whether or not the parties make objection to it.-Valentine v. Stewart, 15 Cal. 387.

FOR AUTHORITIES FROM OTHER STATES:

See 14 Cyc. 458; 17 Cent. Dig., cols. 158159, § 160.

§ 39. Procedure to Effect Dismissal-Motion in General.

[a] A judgment by default against one of the defendants cannot be set aside on the ground that it was entered pending a motion by him to dismiss the action for want of prosecution: a motion to dismiss not extending the time to answer.-McDonald v. Swett, 76 Cal. 257, 18 Pac. 324.

FOR AUTHORITIES FROM OTHER STATES:

§ 40.

See 14 Cyc. 449, 452; 17 Cent. Dig., cols. 159-168, §§ 161-168; cols. 176, 177, § 176.

Form and Requisites of Motion. [a] Where a motion to dismiss omits to state the grounds upon which it is based, it will not be entertained.-Kiler v. Kimbal, 10 Cal. 267; People v. Banvard, 27 Cal. 470; Poehlmann v. Kennedy, 48 Cal. 201; Coffey v. Greenfield, 62 Cal. 602; Silva v. Holland, 74 Cal. 530, 16 Pac. 385; Loring v. Stuart, 79 Cal. 200, 21 Pac. 651; Shain v. Forbes, 82 Cal. 577, 23 Pac. 198; Palmer v. Marysville Democrat Pub. Co., 90 Cal. 168, 27 Pac. 21; Flynn v. Dougherty, 91 Cal. 669, 27 Pac. 1080, 14 L. R. A. 230.

[b] Motion for a nonsuit must distinctly point out the grounds on which it is asked, and it is not error to refuse it, even if there is ground for it, and it is not asked on such ground.-Gardiner v. Schmaelzle, 47 Cal. 588.

[c] Motion for nonsuit must state grounds on which it is made.-Loring v. Stuart, 79 Cal. 201, 21 Pac. 651.

[d] A motion for nonsuit on the ground that "plaintiffs had failed to prove a sufficient case" is properly denied, as not stating the grounds relied on sufficiently.-Miller v. Luco, 80 Cal. 257, 22 Pac. 195.

[e] No other grounds than those stated in motion can be considered by court.-Shain v. Forbes, 82 Cal. 582, 23 Pac. 198.

[f] One who moves for a nonsuit must state the particular grounds upon which the

motion is based; and if he fails to do so, the motion is properly denied.-Durfee v. Seale, 139 Cal. 603, 73 Pac. 435.

FOR AUTHORITIES FROM OTHER STATES:

§ 41.

See 14 Cyc. 449; 17 Cent. Dig., cols. 160162, § 162.

Affidavits to Support Motion or in Opposition Thereto.

[a] Where, to defeat a motion for dismissal, an affidavit is offered, which shows that affiant made, at a time not mentioned, unsuccessful efforts to locate defendant, and about nine years after filing the complaint certain other efforts, which were successful, it will be assumed, in the absence of a showing to the contrary, that both efforts were made at about the same time, and such affidavit will be held insufficient.-Diggins v. Thornton, 96 Cal. 417, 31 Pac. 289.

FOR AUTHORITIES FROM OTHER STATES:

$42.

See 14 Cyc. 452; 17 Cent. Dig., cols. 165167, §§ 165, 166.

Hearing and Determination.

[a] In an action on a note by an indorsee, the question whether plaintiff is the holder as an agent or for value cannot be considered on motion for nonsuit; for in either case he has the title, and can maintain an action in his own name.-Poorman v. Mills, 35 Cal. 118, 95 Am. Dec. 90.

[b] One of the defendants served notice of motion on plaintiff to dismiss the action, as to him, for want of prosecution; he not having been served with summons until about two years after the summons was issued. At request of plaintiff's attorney the hearing of the motion was continued to a certain date. A few days before the hearing, plaintiff's attorney entered judgment by default against said defendant, and on the hearing the motion to dismiss was denied. Held, that there was no abuse of the discretion of the court in denying the motion.-McDonald v. Swett, 76 Cal. 257, 18 Pac. 324.

[c] A motion by defendant for nonsuit is properly denied if made, not on the ground that the evidence admitted did not support plaintiff's cause of action, but only on the grounds on which portions of the admitted evidence were objected to when offered, to the admission of which evidence he excepted, since errors in admitting evidence cannot be reviewed on a motion for nonsuit.-O'Connor v. Hooper, 102 Cal. 528, 36 Pac. 939.

[d] Objection that complaint does not state cause of action is not available on motion to dismiss action.-Pacific Paving Co. v. Vizelich, 141 Cal. 10, 74 Pac. 352.

FOR AUTHORITIES FROM OTHER STATES:

its payment, the summons was served on the executrix by publication ten years after the commencement of the action. Executrix moved to vacate the summons and dismiss the action, as to her, for want of diligence in its prosecution. Decedent had conveyed the mortgaged property to a third person, and was not the owner at his death. A claim for the payment of the debt had been presented to the executrix, and rejected. Held, that a judgment denying the motion, on condition that the plaintiff file a stipulation waiving judgment for any deficiency arising on the sale of the mortgaged property, was proper.-Clark v. Smith, 63 Cal. 385.

FOR AUTHORITIES FROM OTHER STATES: See 14 Cyc. 453; 17 Cent. Dig., cols. 170174, §§ 170-173.

[c] The date of the dismissal of an action is when the judgment of dismissal is entered, and not when the entry is made in the regis ter of actions by the clerk that the action is dismissed by order of the plaintiff.-Acock v. Halsey, 90 Cal. 215, 27 Pac. 193.

[d] Where a case was, on motion of plaintiff, dismissed in open court, but no order of dismissal was entered at the time, and an order of dismissal was afterward entered, without notice to plaintiff, which recited that the case had been settled, and a judgment of dismissal was entered on such order, the court will, eleven years after the entry of the order, set aside the order and judgment, and enter an order nunc pro tunc, as of the date of dismissal, showing that the case was dismissed in open court on plaintiff's motion.-Stoutenborough v. Board of Education of City and County of San Francisco, 104 Cal. 664, 38 Pac. 449.

[e] Under the amended section 581 of the Code of Civil Procedure the entry of a judg ment of dismissal is not required, and it is sufficient that the dismissal be entered in the clerk's register.-Hopkins v. Superior Court, 136 Cal. 552, 69 Pac. 229.

[a] A plaintiff, next day after being served with notice of a motion to dismiss for want of prosecution, caused the summons, issued more than two years before, to be served; and, the defendant having failed to answer within ten days, default was noted, but no assessment was made or judgment entered by the court, and on the day specified in the notice the defendant moved, notwithstanding the default, to dismiss the action for want of prosecution. Held, that the court did not err in so dismissing the suit, by relating back to the time of service of the motion.-Grigsby v. Napa County, 36 Cal. 585, 95 Am. Dec. 213.

FOR AUTHORITIES FROM OTHER STATES:

See 17 Cent. Dig., cols. 176, 177, § 176.

§ 48. Operation and Effect of Dismissal.

[a] The dismissal of a suit for want of prosecution determines everything involved in it, and, so far as the particular action is concerned, is the same as a judgment for defendant on the merits.-Dowling v. Polack, 18 Cal. 625.

[b] If the district court acquired jurisdiction its order dismissing the cause is final and conclusive in the proceeding.-Eldridge v. Stockton, 39 Cal. 693.

[c] Jurisdiction of person is lost by dismissal, and judgment thereafter without vacating dismissal is void.-Sere v. McGovern, 65 Cal. 244, 3 Pac. 859.

[d] Where an action was brought against a ward, and she appeared and answered by general guardian, but no cause of action was stated against him individually, a dismissal as to such ward was a dismissal of the entire action. O'Shea v. Wilkinson, 95 Cal. 454, 30 Pac. 588.

[e] Mere filing of the dismissal of an action with the clerk, or the entry of an order of dismissal upon the minutes, does not, of itself, constitute a bar to another action against the party as to whom the former action was dismissed. Allin v. Williams, 97 Cal. 403, 32 Pac. 441.

[f] Order dismissing action for want of prosecution under subdivision 7, section 581, Code of Civil Procedure, ousts court of jurisdiction and it has no power to enter amended judgment of dismissal thereafter limiting its

[a] The district court cannot review an order granting a nonsuit upon a motion to set aside the nonsuit.-Levy v. Getleson, 27 Cal. 685.

[b] Reinstatement of dismissed case is discretionary.-Lodtman v. Schulter, 71 Cal. 97, 16 Pac. 540.

[c] Judgment dismissing case for want of prosecution may be set aside on showing good cause.-Lodtman v. Schulter, 71 Cal. 97, 16 Pac. 540.

[d] It is not an abuse of discretion to refuse to set aside a dismissal for failure to file an amended complaint within the required time, where the affidavits of the attorneys, as to the existence of an oral stipulation for the extension of the time to file the complaint, are contradictory.-Rauer v. Wolf, 115 Cal. 100, 46 Pac. 902.

[e] After a substitution of attorneys by plaintiff, defendant's motion to dismiss for want of prosecution was granted. Plaintiff's attorney moved to vacate such order, alleging failure to find the former attorney, and consequent inability to procure an affidavit contradicting the allegations in support of the motion. Held that, if the plaintiff's affidavits were sufficient to satisfy the court that the attorney had made a reasonable effort to find the former attorney, it was justified in holding that the neglect was excusable.Moore v. Thompson, 138 Cal. 23, 70 Pac. 930.

[f] A motion to vacate an order dismissing a cause for want of prosecution is not only ad

dressed to the discretion of the court, but this discretion may be controlled by facts not before the court on the hearing of the motion to dismiss, if there was an excusable neglect in the failure to present them.-Moore v. Thompson, 138 Cal. 23, 70 Pac. 930.

[g] Where an attorney appears in court five minutes after the dismissal of the cause and rendition of judgment against his client because of the absence of both attorney and client when the case was called for trial, it is not an abuse of discretion for the court, on motion supported by a sufficient affidavit, to vacate the order of dismissal and judgment, and restore the cause to the calendar.-Ashton v. Dashaway Assn., 33 Pac. 446.

an incorporated town.-Foley, Ex parte, 62 Cal. 508.

FOR AUTHORITIES FROM OTHER STATES: See 14 Cyc. 472-474, 476; 17 Cent. Dig., cols. 201-205, §§ 12-15.

DISORDERLY HOUSE.

Include owning, letting, keeping, or frequenting a building or portion of a building used as a bawdyhouse or for any other lewd or indecent purpose, or as a gaming-house, or place for smoking opium, or other place of public resort by which the peace, comfort, or decency of the neighborhood is habitually disturbed, and keeping a house, the conduct of the inmates of which constitutes a public nuisance; nature and extent of criminal responsibility therefor, and grounds of defense; and prosecution and punishment of such acts as public offenses.

STATUTORY PROVISIONS, § 1.
HOUSE OF ILL-FAME DEFINED, § 2.
PLACING OR PERMITTING WIFE TO LIVE IN
HOUSE OF PROSTITUTION, § 3.
LETTING APARTMENTS FOR PURPOSE

PROSTITUTION OR ASSIGNATION, § 4. SENTENCE AND PUNISHMENT, § 5.

OF

facts.-People v. Bosquet, 116 Cal. 78, 58 Am. St. Rep. 133, 47 Pac. 879.

[c] Evidence held sufficient to sustain conviction of husband for consenting to his wife's being in house of prostitution.-People v. Bosquet, 116 Cal. 81, 58 Am. St. Rep. 133, 47 Pac. 879.

§ 4. Letting Apartments for Purpose of Prostitution or Assignation.

[a] Under section 316, Penal Code, every person who lets any apartment or tenement, knowing that it is to be used for the purpose of assignation or prostitution, is guilty of a misdemeanor.-Chateau v. Singla, 114 Cal. 91, 55 Am. St. Rep. 63, 45 Pac. 1015.

FOR AUTHORITIES FROM OTHER STATES:

See 14 Cyc. 490; 17 Cent. Dig., cols. 214223, §§ 6, 9-13.

§ 5. Sentence and Punishment.

[a] Statutes of 1861, page 552, giving the board of supervisors of the city and county of San Francisco power to determine the penalties for breach of its regulations, with the maximum limit of one thousand dollars, or six months' imprisonment, or both, does not authorize the maximum penalty for violation of every regulation. The penalty must be reasonable, with reference to the offense, and section 33 of order 1587, as amended by order 1955, of the board of supervisors, leav ing it to the discretion of the judge to fix the punishment for visiting a house of ill-fame, with a maximum limit of one thousand dollars fine, or imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both, since it gives the judge power to fix an unreasonable punishment for the offense, is void.-Ah You, In re, 88 Cal. 99, 22 Am. St. Rep. 280, 25 Pac. 974, 11 L. R. A. 408.

DISREGARD OF EVIDENCE. Discharge of jury for. See Criminal Law, § 483.

DISRESPECTFUL LANGUAGE.

See Abusive Language.

In argument to jury. See Criminal Law, 367.

DISSEISIN.

Of tenant in common. See Tenancy in Common. $$ 9-11.

DISSEMBLANCE.

Admissibility and competency of evidence procured by. See Criminal Law, 137.

DISSOLUTION.

of unincorporated associations. See Associations, i

18.

Of attachment. See Attachment, § 130.
Of law firm. See Attorney and Client, § 17.

Of beneficial associations. See Beneficial Associations, § 28.