From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Peck v. Superior Court

Court of Appeal of California, Third District
Apr 23, 1934
138 Cal.App. 222 (Cal. Ct. App. 1934)

Opinion

Docket No. 5156.

April 23, 1934.

APPLICATION for a Writ of Prohibition directed to the Superior Court of Colusa County and Ernest Weyand, Judge, and Arthur Coates, Judge pro tem., thereof. Writ denied.

Alva A. King and E. Vayne Miller for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondents.


THE COURT.

[1] The application of the above-named petitioner for a writ of prohibition is hereby denied upon the authority of section 14 of article I of the Constitution, and the cases of Marblehead Land Co. v. Superior Court, 62 Cal.App. 408 [ 217 P. 536], and Stone v. Cordua Irr. Dist., 72 Cal.App. 331 [ 237 P. 554].

In the Marblehead Land Company case it was held that the court might fix the amount of the security upon an ex parte showing, and that such proceeding did not violate the fourteenth amendment of the federal Constitution.

In the Stone case it was held by this court that section 14 of article I does not violate any of the provisions of the federal Constitution in providing for the immediate taking of possession of property upon giving security in the way of making deposits to cover damages in such sum as the court might determine. (See list of cases cited on page 337 of volume 72, supra.)


Summaries of

Peck v. Superior Court

Court of Appeal of California, Third District
Apr 23, 1934
138 Cal.App. 222 (Cal. Ct. App. 1934)
Case details for

Peck v. Superior Court

Case Details

Full title:JAMES F. PECK, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF COLUSA COUNTY et al.…

Court:Court of Appeal of California, Third District

Date published: Apr 23, 1934

Citations

138 Cal.App. 222 (Cal. Ct. App. 1934)
31 P.2d 1042

Citing Cases

City of Los Angeles v. Decker

The right of a public entity to take private property for public use has its roots in the California…

United States v. 72 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situate in City of Oakland, Alameda County

Bragg v. Weaver, 251 U.S. 57, 40 S.Ct. 62, 64 L.Ed. 135. Due process requires no more than that the owner be…