Finnan v. Bd. of Supervisors of San Joaquin

California Court of Appeal

Finnan v. Bd. of Supervisors of San Joaquin

148 P. 231, 26 Cal. App. 724, 1915 Cal. App. LEXIS 347

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMarch 9, 1915

DocketCiv. No. 1323.

StatusPublished

This text of 148 P. 231 (Finnan v. Bd. of Supervisors of San Joaquin) 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

Finnan v. Bd. of Supervisors of San Joaquin, 148 P. 231, 26 Cal. App. 724, 1915 Cal. App. LEXIS 347 (Cal. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

BURNETT, J.

This is a companion case to No. 1330, ante, p. 714, [148 Pac. 227], the opinion in which is filed herewith. While this bears an earlier number on appeal than the other cause, it was brought later in the superior court, as we have already seen. For a statement of the facts it is sufficient to refer to said opinion in No. 1330. If we are right in the conclusions reached therein, this action was unnecessary and resulted in costs that might have been avoided. However, the fact that the other action was pending does not seem to have been called to the attention of the learned trial judge who presided in this action. If it had been he might have held that it afforded “a plain, speedy and adequate remedy.” In view of our conclusion in the other case, we deem it unnecessary, though, to decide whether the old law afforded such remedy, as the question now seems moot so far as this court is concerned. It may be added that, under said amended statute, such remedy seems to be clearly afforded.

The judgment is affirmed. ■

Chipman, P. J., and Hart, J., concurred.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the district court of appeal on April 8,1915

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

BURNETT, J.

This is a companion case to No. 1330, ante, p. 714, [148 Pac. 227], the opinion in which is filed herewith. While this bears an earlier number on appeal than the other cause, it was brought later in the superior court, as we have already seen. For a statement of the facts it is sufficient to refer to said opinion in No. 1330. If we are right in the conclusions reached therein, this action was unnecessary and resulted in costs that might have been avoided. However, the fact that the other action was pending does not seem to have been called to the attention of the learned trial judge who presided in this action. If it had been he might have held that it afforded “a plain, speedy and adequate remedy.” In view of our conclusion in the other case, we deem it unnecessary, though, to decide whether the old law afforded such remedy, as the question now seems moot so far as this court is concerned. It may be added that, under said amended statute, such remedy seems to be clearly afforded.

The judgment is affirmed. ■

Chipman, P. J., and Hart, J., concurred.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the district court of appeal on April 8,1915

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 P. 231, 26 Cal. App. 724, 1915 Cal. App. LEXIS 347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/finnan-v-bd-of-supervisors-of-san-joaquin-calctapp-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack