gno.law

Cook v. Noble

California Supreme Court · L. A. No. 6383. · 1919-12-18 · Published · 186 P. 150 · 181 Cal. 720 · 1919 Cal. LEXIS 416

GEORGE M. COOK, Petitioner, v. C. G. NOBLE, City Recorder of the City of Taft, County of Kern, State of California, Respondent

Area
civil
Panel
The Court (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

THE COURT.

Petitioner, a justice of the peace in Kern County, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel respondent, city recorder of the city of Taft, in Kern County, to allow him to practice law before him. Section 171 of the Code of Civil Procedure, provides “nor shall any justice of the peace practice law before any justice’s court in the county In which he resides.”

[1]

In view of the nature and jurisdiction of a recorder’s court in a city or town, it being practically a justice’s court, we are satisfied it comes within the spirit and policy of the provision of section 171 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that, we have quoted, and that petitioner has no lawful right to practice in respondent’s court.

[2]

Regardless of any other question presented, it is well settled that mandamus will not lie to compel the performance of acts which are illegal, contrary to public policy, or which tend to aid an unlawful purpose. (See Godwin v. Carolina Tel. & Tel. Co., 136 N. C. 258, [103 Am. St. Rep. 941, 1 Ann. Cas. 203, and note, 67 L. R. A. 251, 48 S. E. 636].)

The application for a writ of mandamm is denied.

Angellotti, C. J., Wilbur, J., Lawlor, J., Olney, J., and Shaw, J., concurred.

Cited by