From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Visalia City Water Co. v. Superior Court for County of Tulare

Supreme Court of California
Feb 28, 1898
120 Cal. 219 (Cal. 1898)

Opinion

         WRIT of review from the Supreme Court to review and annul an order of the Superior Court of Tulare County appointing a receiver. William W. Cross, Judge.

         COUNSEL:

         Lamberson & Middlecoff, for Petitioner.

         E. T. Dunning, and W. B. Wallace, for Respondent.


         JUDGES: In Bank.

         OPINION

         THE COURT

         In an action pending in the superior court of the county of Tulare between the National Trust Company and the Visalia City Water Company, petitioner herein, the superior court appointed a receiver with certain designated powers, and thereafter upon the motion of the water company, a writ of review of said order was issued out of this court. At the hearing upon the return to this writ it was made to appear that since the filing of the petition herein the receiver has been discharged and his accounts settled by order of the superior court under which he was appointed. There is, therefore, no existing order of the superior court which can be affected by any judgment of this court upon the writ of review, and the correctness of the order has become merely a moot question. (See Foster v. Smith , 115 Cal. 611.)

         The writ is, therefore, discharged.


Summaries of

Visalia City Water Co. v. Superior Court for County of Tulare

Supreme Court of California
Feb 28, 1898
120 Cal. 219 (Cal. 1898)
Case details for

Visalia City Water Co. v. Superior Court for County of Tulare

Case Details

Full title:VISALIA CITY WATER COMPANY, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY…

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Feb 28, 1898

Citations

120 Cal. 219 (Cal. 1898)
52 P. 485

Citing Cases

Eiseman v. Daugherty

The only point really before us is whether petitioner was legally and constitutionally deprived of his…

Westphal v. Westphal

In Busch v. Busch, 99 Cal.App. 198 [ 278 P. 456], the rule is again announced that where the wife is the…