Majority
p. 398[No. 9,846. In Bank. January 30, 1885.] THE PEOPLE, ex rel. M. R. LEVERSON et al., Petitioners, v. THOMAS L. THOMPSON, Secretary of State, Respondent.
Headnote
Mandamus—Appeal—Order—Final Judgment.—An order of a Superior Court refusing a writ of mandate is a final judgment, from which an appeal may he taken; and as a right of appeal exists, the Supreme Court will not entertain an original application for the writ.Application for a writ of mandamus, compelling the Secretary of State to compare and certify the votes cast at the last congressional election, in accordance with the law in force in the state prior to March 13, 1883. At the hearing, it appeared that a petition asking the same relief had been presented to the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and the writ was denied. The other facts appear in the opinion of the court.
Attorney General Marshall, M. R. Leverson, and G. W. Chamberlain, for Petitioners.
H. G. Platt, for Respondent.
An appeal lies to this court from the judgment rendered in the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, denying the writ asked for by the relators therein. That case, as appears from the petition to this court, is the same as is presented here. Under these circumstances, as the relators can bring their case here by appeal from the judgment entered, the writ asked for is denied. We will add here, that the order of the Superior Court denying the writ in the case before it is the final judgment in the cause, from which, when, regularly entered, an appeal will lie. Application -denied.