Majority
p. 795[S. F. No. 11384. In Bank. November 17, 1924.] PAIGE COMPANY OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA (a Corporation), Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT et al., Respondents.
Headnote
[1] Prohibition—Denial by District Court or Appeal—Remedy oe Applicant—Procedure.—The remedy of an applicant for a writ of prohibition after denial thereof by the district court of appeal is by application for a transfer and hearing in the supreme court and not by way of original application to the latter court; and where original application is made instead of application for a transfer, such writ will be denied by the supreme court.(1) 15 C. J., p. 1029, sec. 453.
APPLICATION for a Writ of Prohibition. Application denied.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
p. 796
Haswell, Peterson & Martin for Petitioner.
[1] It appearing upon the face of the petition herein that the petitioner has heretofore applied for a similar writ of prohibition to the district court of appeal, in and for the third appellate district, and that its said application was, on the fourteenth day of November, 1924, denied by said court, the remedy of the petitioner herein was by application for a transfer and hearing in this court upon its aforesaid petition and was not by way of an original application to this court for the writ herein sought. Its said application is for that reason denied.