From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hotchkiss v. Superior Court

Supreme Court of California
Aug 3, 1928
204 Cal. 667 (Cal. 1928)

Opinion

Docket No. S.F. 13097.

August 3, 1928.

APPLICATION for a Writ of Mandamus to require respondents to settle a bill of exceptions. Writ denied.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Geo. F. Witter for Petitioners.


THE COURT.

[1] Petitioners filed an application for a writ of mandate to compel the respondent to settle a proposed bill of exceptions preparatory to an appeal from a judgment against sureties on an appeal bond entered on motion after the affirmance of the judgment appealed from. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 942.)

From the facts alleged in the petition for the writ it appears that, on timely motion, the appeal of the sureties from the judgment will have to be dismissed. ( Duerr v. Sloan, 50 Cal.App. 512, 516 [ 195 P. 475]. See, also, Meredith v. Santa Clara etc. Assn., 60 Cal. 617, 621, and Gray v. Cotton, 174 Cal. 256, 258 [ 162 P. 1019].)

Mandate will not lie to compel the performance of a useless act. The petition is therefore denied.


Summaries of

Hotchkiss v. Superior Court

Supreme Court of California
Aug 3, 1928
204 Cal. 667 (Cal. 1928)
Case details for

Hotchkiss v. Superior Court

Case Details

Full title:O.E. HOTCHKISS et al., Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF ALAMEDA COUNTY et…

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Aug 3, 1928

Citations

204 Cal. 667 (Cal. 1928)
269 P. 524

Citing Cases

People v. Hodges

With this contention we are in complete accord. ( Hotchkiss v. SuperiorCourt, 204 Cal. 667 [ 269 P. 524];…

City of Pasadena v. Superior Court

Since this is so, the writ of mandate will not issue to compel the settling of a bill of exceptions, it being…