Summary
In Hull v. Superior Court, 63 Cal. 179, [24 P. 138] it was said that prohibition was not available to prevent the acts of a de facto ministerial officer, nor to prevent judicial acts already done.
Summary of this case from Havemeyer v. Superior CourtOpinion
APPLICATION for a writ of prohibition.
COUNSEL:
Clay W. Taylor, A. M. Rosborough, and R. A. Redman, for Petitioner.
I. S. Belcher, and Chipman & Garter, for Respondents.
OPINION
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
PER CURIAM.
The demurrer to the petition in this proceeding must be sustained. The petition alleges that the Superior Court, " has recognized, does recognize, and, unless prohibited, will continue to recognize and take judicial notice of the acts of W. E. Hopping," who claims to act as sheriff and tax collector of Shasta County.
Prohibition is not available as a remedy to prevent the acts of a de facto or de jure ministerial officer ( People v. Board of Election, 54 Cal. 404; Le Conte v. Berkeley, 57 Cal. 269); nor to prevent judicial acts already done.
The right of one claiming to act as sheriff of a county can only be questioned in a proper proceeding by information in the nature of a quo warranto. (Hull v. Superior Court, ante.)
Demurrer sustained and writ dismissed.