Norton v. Municipal Court
HATTIE F. NORTON v. THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES
- 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.
This petition (see par. XXXVI) asks for a writ of supersedeas directed to proceedings in an action not pending on any appeal to this court. An appellate court has no jurisdiction to grant a writ of supersedeas except in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. (Rosenfeld v. Miller, 216 Cal. 560 [15 Pac. (2d) 161].)
In so far as the prayer of the petition asks for supersedeas in relation to the proceeding in the superior court entitled Norton v. Municipal Court, wherein that court has denied the petitioners’ application for a writ of prohibition, and in which (par. XXXIX herein) it appears that petitioners have appealed to this court, the petition is also without merit. The judgment or order appealed from is self-executing and no process is required to be issued for its enforcement. In such case no supersedeas is allowed. (Hulse v. Davis, 200 Cal. 316 [253 Pac. 136].)
The petition is denied.
Cites, in this corpus
- Rosenfeld v. Miller Docket No. L.A. 13819. · 1932-10-24
- Hulse v. Davis Docket No. L.A. 9522. · 1927-01-31
Cited by
- Stewart v. Hurt L. A. 16180 · 1937-05-27