Marsh v. Superior Court
GEORGE T. MARSH v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
- Area
- probate
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.
The petition herein is insufficient to authorize the issuance of the writ asked for.
The petition does not show that the order of the superior court removing B. T. Whiteside from the position of assignee or trustee, under the deed of assignment executed for the benefit of the creditors of the insolvent firm of Blum, Eppstein & Co., was made without notice to Whiteside.
The averment that the petition filed in the superior court, asking for the removal of said Whiteside, contained “no allegations of any legal cause why said Whiteside should be removed,” is but the statement of a conclusion of law, and is not equivalent to a direct allegation that said petition did not charge that said Whiteside had violated or was unfit to execute the duties of trustee under said deed of assignment.
Application for writ denied.
Cited by
- Board of Fire Commissioners of the Lower Sweetwater Fire Protection District v. Board of Supervisors Civ. No. 5193 · 1956-08-31
- Wells, Fargo & Co. v. McCarthy Civ. No. 264. · 1907-03-30