Donohue v. Superior Court

28 P. 1043, 93 Cal. 252, 1892 Cal. LEXIS 551
California Supreme Court·Decided February 4, 1892·No. No. 14646·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

The Court.

Petitioners aver that they are defendants in an action pending in th.e court of respondents, in which one Hinkel is plaintiff; that said action is an action to quiet title to certain described lands; that petitioners have answered in said action, setting up certain defenses; that petitioners have demanded a jury trial of [253]*253said action; that their demand has been refused, and that the respondents are about to try said action without a jury. Wherefore petitioners pray for a writ of mandate, commanding respondents to comply with petitioners’ demand for a jury, and not to undertake to try or to set said action for trial without a jury.”

Whether or not the petitioners should have a jury trial of said action is a question of law which the superior court has jurisdiction to hear and determine; and if any error has been, or shall be, committed in determining that question, the petitioners have a sufficient remedy in the ordinary course of law by appeal.

■ The prayer of petitioners is denied, and the proceeding dismissed.

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

Donohue v. Superior Court, 28 P. 1043, 93 Cal. 252, 1892 Cal. LEXIS 551 (Cal. 1892).

28 P. 1043 (Donohue v. Superior Court) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Shaw v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty.
393 P.3d 98 (California Supreme Court, 2017)
Nessbit v. Superior Court
3 P.2d 558 (California Supreme Court, 1931)
Mechler v. Superior Court
259 P. 452 (California Court of Appeal, 1927)
Widney v. Superior Court
258 P. 416 (California Court of Appeal, 1927)
Abercrombie v. Edwards
1916 OK 1031 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1916)