August Belmont & Co. v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

August Belmont & Co. v. Superior Court

4 P.2d 158, 117 Cal. App. 450, 1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 538

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedOctober 14, 1931

DocketDocket No. 8166.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 4 P.2d 158 (August Belmont & Co. v. Superior Court) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

August Belmont & Co. v. Superior Court, 4 P.2d 158, 117 Cal. App. 450, 1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 538 (Cal. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

The application alleges in substance that petitioners are copartners and residents of the state of New *451 York; that in a certain action brought in this state against petitioners a summons was issued which, together with a copy of the complaint, was served on the commissioner of corporations; that said commissioner was not authorized to accept such service except in actions arising out of or founded upon actual fraud, and the action was not one of this character. A motion to quash the service was made and denied. The present proceeding followed.

While we are at a loss to understand under what authority the commissioner of corporations accepted service, prohibition is not the proper remedy. The error of the superior court in denying petitioners’ motion to quash the service of summons may be reviewed on appeal from any adverse judgment rendered. It is well settled that where a person has a right of appeal and such appeal will afford an adequate and complete remedy, such error can be corrected on appeal and the writ does not lie. (Lumas Film Corp. v. Superior Court, 89 Cal. App. 384, 386 [264 Pac. 792]; Bullard v. Superior Court, 106 Cal. App. 513, 516 [288 Pac. 629]; 21 Cal. Jur. 587.)

The application for the writ is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THE COURT.

The application alleges in substance that petitioners are copartners and residents of the state of New *451 York; that in a certain action brought in this state against petitioners a summons was issued which, together with a copy of the complaint, was served on the commissioner of corporations; that said commissioner was not authorized to accept such service except in actions arising out of or founded upon actual fraud, and the action was not one of this character. A motion to quash the service was made and denied. The present proceeding followed.

While we are at a loss to understand under what authority the commissioner of corporations accepted service, prohibition is not the proper remedy. The error of the superior court in denying petitioners’ motion to quash the service of summons may be reviewed on appeal from any adverse judgment rendered. It is well settled that where a person has a right of appeal and such appeal will afford an adequate and complete remedy, such error can be corrected on appeal and the writ does not lie. (Lumas Film Corp. v. Superior Court, 89 Cal. App. 384, 386 [264 Pac. 792]; Bullard v. Superior Court, 106 Cal. App. 513, 516 [288 Pac. 629]; 21 Cal. Jur. 587.)

The application for the writ is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 P.2d 158, 117 Cal. App. 450, 1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/august-belmont-co-v-superior-court-calctapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack