Hotchkiss v. Superior Court
O.E. Hotchkiss v. Superior Court of Alameda County
- Outcome
- writ denied — APPLICATION for a Writ of Mandamus to require respondents to settle a bill of exceptions. Writ denied. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
- Area
- civil
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.
[1] Petitioners filed an application for a writ of mandate to compel the respondent to settle a proposed bill of exceptions preparatory to an appeal from a judgment against sureties on an appeal bond entered on motion after the affirmance of the judgment appealed from. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 942.)
From the facts alleged in the petition for the writ it appears that, on timely motion, the appeal of the sureties from the judgment will have to be dismissed. (Duerr v. Sloan, 50 Cal.App. 512, 516 [195 P. 475]. See, also, Meredith v. SantaClara etc. Assn., 60 Cal. 617, 621, and Gray v. Cotton,174 Cal. 256, 258 [162 P. 1019].)
Mandate will not lie to compel the performance of a useless act. The petition is therefore denied. *Page 668
Cites, in this corpus
- Duerr v. Sloan Civ. No. 3445. · 1920-12-22
- Gray v. Cotton Sac. No. 2581. · 1917-01-24
- Meredith v. Santa Clara Mining Ass'n of Baltimore No. 7,779 · 1882-06-28
Cited by
- City of Pasadena v. Superior Court Docket No. L.A. 12493. · 1931-04-23
- People v. Hodges Docket No. L.A. 10777. · 1928-11-10