gno.law

Donohue v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court · No. 14646 · 1892-02-04 · Published · 93 Cal. 252 · 28 P. 1043 · 1892 Cal. LEXIS 551

PATRICK DONOHUE et ux. v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

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.

Petitioners aver that they are defendants in an action pending in th.e court of respondents, in which one Hinkel is plaintiff; that said action is an action to quiet title to certain described lands; that petitioners have answered in said action, setting up certain defenses; that petitioners have demanded a jury trial of *253said action; that their demand has been refused, and that the respondents are about to try said action without a jury. Wherefore petitioners pray for a writ of mandate, commanding respondents to comply with petitioners’ demand for a jury, and “ not to undertake to try or to set said action for trial without a jury.”

Whether or not the petitioners should have a jury trial of said action is a question of law which the superior court has jurisdiction to hear and determine; and if any error has been, or shall be, committed in determining that question, the petitioners have a sufficient remedy in the ordinary course of law by appeal.

■ The prayer of petitioners is denied, and the proceeding dismissed.

Cited by