From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Le Conte v. Trustees & Marshal of Berkeley

Supreme Court of California
Jan 1, 1881
57 Cal. 269 (Cal. 1881)

Summary

In Le Conte v. Town of Berkeley, 57 Cal. 269, a writ was refused to restrain the collection of a street assessment upon the ground that it was not the proper remedy.

Summary of this case from City of Coronado v. City of San Diego

Opinion

         Department One

         NOTICE: [THE BRIEFS OF COUNSEL WERE CONFINED TO THE QUESTION OF THE LEGALITY OF THE ASSESSMENT, AND EXPRESSLY REFRAINED FROM RAISING THE POINT OF THE PROPRIETY OF THE REMEDY. THEY ARE FOR THAT REASON OMITTED.]

         Appeal from a judgment for the plaintiffs, in the Fifteenth District Court for the City and County of San Francisco. Dwinelle, J.

         This was a proceeding to obtain a writ of prohibition to restrain the defendant from collecting a street assessment, the plaintiff claiming that its lands sought to be assessed were State lands, and not liable to be assessed.

         COUNSEL

          York & Whitworth, for Appellants.

          John B. Mhoon, for Respondent.


         OPINION

         The Court:

         A writ of prohibition does not run to a ministerial officer. The acts sought to be prohibited were not judicial acts; therefore the writ of prohibition, which was issued in this case on the 26th day of August, 1879, was improperly issued.

         Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.


Summaries of

Le Conte v. Trustees & Marshal of Berkeley

Supreme Court of California
Jan 1, 1881
57 Cal. 269 (Cal. 1881)

In Le Conte v. Town of Berkeley, 57 Cal. 269, a writ was refused to restrain the collection of a street assessment upon the ground that it was not the proper remedy.

Summary of this case from City of Coronado v. City of San Diego
Case details for

Le Conte v. Trustees & Marshal of Berkeley

Case Details

Full title:JOHN LE CONTE, President of the University of California, v. THE TRUSTEES…

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Jan 1, 1881

Citations

57 Cal. 269 (Cal. 1881)

Citing Cases

Hull v. Superior Court of Shasta County

The petition alleges that the Superior Court, " has recognized, does recognize, and, unless prohibited, will…

Hobart v. Tillson

If that were permissible, the clerk of the court could be prohibited from issuing process, or the sheriff…