Chester v. Colby

52 Cal. 516
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1877·No. No. 5890·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

By the Court :

It is alleged in the answer that the respondent demurred to the complaint and affidavit on which the warrant was issued for an alleged contempt, on the ground that the Probate Court has no jurisdiction to proceed in the same matter of contempt, and that the demurrer is still pending and undetermined; the pendency of the demurrer was admitted at the argument before us.

The writ of prohibition, under our statute, as at the common law, is a prerogative writ, and will not be issued if the question of the jurisdiction of the inferior Court has been submitted to that Court by any appropriate pleading or objection, while that question remained undetermined by that Court. (High’s Ex. Rem. p. 588, sec. 773; Cox v. St. Albans, 1 Mod. 81; Williams, Ex parte, 4 Ark. 537 ; City of Little Rock, Ex parte, 26 Ark. 52; Meechen, Ex parte, 12 Ark. 70; Bouton v. Hursler, 1 Barn. 71; Edmundson v. Walker, Carth, 106.) Writ denied.

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

Chester v. Colby, 52 Cal. 516 (Cal. 1877).

52 Cal. 516 (Chester v. Colby) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers v. Superior Court
207 Cal. App. 2d 676 (California Court of Appeal, 1962)
Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal
109 P.2d 942 (California Supreme Court, 1941)
Noland v. Superior Court
80 P.2d 76 (California Court of Appeal, 1938)
Phillips v. Superior Court
293 P. 661 (California Court of Appeal, 1930)
Board of Com'rs v. District Court of Fourth Judicial Dist.
223 P. 516 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1924)
State ex rel. Fenn v. McQuillin
165 S.W. 713 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1914)
Ex parte Oldham
2 Ohio App. 457 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1914)