Hyperlawhypertext legal database Craycroft v. Superior Court 23 Cal. App. 182

← Cases

Craycroft v. Superior Court

23 Cal. App. 182 Court Second Appellate District. Decision date 1913-11-06 Docket Civ. No. 1394 English

Delivered by SHAW, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 182
[Civ. No. 1394.
Second Appellate District.
November 6, 1913.]
FRANK CRAYCROFT, Jr. et al., Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF KERN COUNTY et al., Respondents.

Headnote

State School Lands—Limitation of Time for Contest—Prohibition.—The superior court is divested of jurisdiction to hear and determine a contest of a certificate of purchase of state school lands after the lapse of five years from its date, and a writ of prohibition will lie to restrain it from exercising such jurisdiction.
APPLICATION for Writ of Prohibition to be directed to the Superior Court of Kern County.
The facts aré stated in the opinion of the court.
L. L. Cory, Miles Wallace, and Lloyd, Cheney & Geibel, for Petitioners.

This is an application for a writ of prohibition to be directed to the superior court of Kern County and the judges thereof, prohibiting the said court from proceeding with the trial of a certain action pending therein, wherein Charles Smithwick is plaintiff and petitioners and others are

p. 183
defendants. The subject of the action is the conflicting claims of the respective parties to the right to purchase from the state certain school lands described in the petition over which a contest arose in the office of the state surveyor-general and register of the state land-office, which contest was by order duly made referred for-adjudication to said court.

The facts upon which this proceeding is based are, except as to some of the parties and the particular description of the land, identical with those involved in the case of Craycroft Jr., v. Superior Court of Kern County, decided by this court and reported in 18 Cal. App. 781 , [ 124 Pac. 1042 ], wherein a writ of prohibition was ordered. Upon the authority of that case and for the reasons set forth in the opinion filed therein, it is clear that a peremptory writ of prohibition should issue in accordance with the prayer of the petition; and it is so ordered.

Conrey, P. J., and James, J., concurred.

Cases cited