Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Lindley v. Superior Court 141 Cal. 220

← Cases

Lindley v. Superior Court

141 Cal. 220 Court Cal. Decision date 1903-11-30 Docket S. F. No. 3777 English

Contents

Majority

p. 220
[S. F. No. 3777.
In Bank.—
November 30, 1903.]
HERVEY LINDLEY, and POKEGAMA SUGAR PINE LUMBER COMPANY, Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SISKIYOU COUNTY, Respondent.

Headnote

Prohibition—Trial op Cause—Jurisdiction—Remedy by Appeal.— This court will not sustain a writ of prohibition to prevent the superior court from trying a case before it, for alleged want of jurisdiction, there being a remedy by appeal. It is not a sufficient ground for the writ that the trial will be expensive and troublesome.
PETITION for Writ of Prohibition to the Superior Court of Siskiyou County. J. S. Beard, Judge.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
E. S. Pillsbury, J. F. Farraher, and Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, for Petitioners.
The petitioners were entitled to have the action dismissed, and prohibition will lie to prevent a trial of it. (Keystone Driller Co. v. Superior Court, 138 Cal. 738 ; White v. Superior Court, 126 Cal. 245 ; Modoc Land etc. Co. v. Superior Court, 128 Cal. 255 ; Hopkins v. Superior Court, 136 Cal. 552 ; Anderson v. Superior Court, 122 Cal. 216 ; Siebe v. Superior Court, 114 Cal. 551 .)

The petition in this case is for a writ prohibiting the superior court from proceeding to the trial of an action in which the petitioner is a defendant. If, as contended, the superior court is without jurisdiction, there is of course a remedy by appeal for any adverse judgment affecting petitioner, and it is not sufficient ground for interfering by prohibition that the trial will be expensive and troublesome.

The establishment of a rule allowing a resort to the writ of prohibition on that ground would involve too serious and too frequent interruption to the business of the court.

Writ denied.

Cases cited