Cook v. Noble

California Supreme Court

Cook v. Noble

186 P. 150, 181 Cal. 720, 1919 Cal. LEXIS 416

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 18, 1919

DocketL. A. No. 6383.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 186 P. 150 (Cook v. Noble) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cook v. Noble, 186 P. 150, 181 Cal. 720, 1919 Cal. LEXIS 416 (Cal. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

Petitioner, a justice of the peace in Kern

County, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel respondent, city recorder of the city of Taft, in Kern County, to allow him to practice law before him. Section 171 of the Code of Civil Procedure, provides “nor shall any justice of the peace practice law before any justice’s court in the county In which he resides.” [1] In view of the nature and jurisdiction of a recorder’s court in a city or town, it being practically a justice’s court, we are satisfied it comes within the spirit and policy of the provision of section 171 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that, we have quoted, and that petitioner has no lawful right to practice in respondent’s court. [2] Regardless of any other question presented, it is well settled that mandamus will not lie to compel the performance of acts which are illegal, contrary to public policy, or which tend to aid an unlawful purpose. (See Godwin v. Carolina Tel. & Tel. Co., 136 N. C. 258, [103 Am. St. Rep. 941, 1 Ann. Cas. 203, and note, 67 L. R. A. 251, 48 S. E. 636].)

The application for a writ of mandamm is denied.

Angellotti, C. J., Wilbur, J., Lawlor, J., Olney, J., and Shaw, J., concurred.

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

THE COURT.

Petitioner, a justice of the peace in Kern

County, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel respondent, city recorder of the city of Taft, in Kern County, to allow him to practice law before him. Section 171 of the Code of Civil Procedure, provides “nor shall any justice of the peace practice law before any justice’s court in the county In which he resides.” [1] In view of the nature and jurisdiction of a recorder’s court in a city or town, it being practically a justice’s court, we are satisfied it comes within the spirit and policy of the provision of section 171 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that, we have quoted, and that petitioner has no lawful right to practice in respondent’s court. [2] Regardless of any other question presented, it is well settled that mandamus will not lie to compel the performance of acts which are illegal, contrary to public policy, or which tend to aid an unlawful purpose. (See Godwin v. Carolina Tel. & Tel. Co., 136 N. C. 258, [103 Am. St. Rep. 941, 1 Ann. Cas. 203, and note, 67 L. R. A. 251, 48 S. E. 636].)

The application for a writ of mandamm is denied.

Angellotti, C. J., Wilbur, J., Lawlor, J., Olney, J., and Shaw, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 P. 150, 181 Cal. 720, 1919 Cal. LEXIS 416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cook-v-noble-cal-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack