Finnan v. Bd. of Supervisors of San Joaquin
JOHN FINNAN Et Al., Respondents, v. the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, Appellant
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Joaquin County
- Trial judge
- G. W. Nicol
- Outcome
- affirmed — The judgment is affirmed.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Albert G. Burnett (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Burnett
BURNETT, J.
This is a companion case to No. 1330, ante, p. 714, [148 Pac. 227], the opinion in which is filed herewith. While this bears an earlier number on appeal than the other cause, it was brought later in the superior court, as we have already seen. For a statement of the facts it is sufficient to refer to said opinion in No. 1330. If we are right in the conclusions reached therein, this action was unnecessary and resulted in costs that might have been avoided. However, the fact that the other action was pending does not seem to have been called to the attention of the learned trial judge who presided in this action. If it had been he might have held that it afforded “a plain, speedy and adequate remedy.” In view of our conclusion in the other case, we deem it unnecessary, though, to decide whether the old law afforded such remedy, as the question now seems moot so far as this court is concerned. It may be added that, under said amended statute, such remedy seems to be clearly afforded.
The judgment is affirmed. ■ Chipman, P. J., and Hart, J., concurred.
A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the district court of appeal on April 8,1915
Cites, in this corpus
- Finnan v. Reclamation Dist. No. 273 Civ. No. 1330. · 1915-03-09