Hotchkiss v. Superior Court

269 P. 524, 204 Cal. 667, 1928 Cal. LEXIS 733
California Supreme Court·Decided August 3, 1928·No. Docket No. S.F. 13097.·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

THE COURT.

[1] Petitioners filed an application for a writ of mandate to compel the respondent to settle a proposed bill of exceptions preparatory to an appeal from a judgment against sureties on an appeal bond entered on motion after the affirmance of the judgment appealed from. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 942.)

From the facts alleged in the petition for the writ it appears that, on timely motion, the appeal of the sureties from the judgment will have to be dismissed. (Duerr v. Sloan, 50 Cal.App. 512, 516 [195 P. 475]. See, also, Meredith v. SantaClara etc. Assn., 60 Cal. 617, 621, and Gray v. Cotton,174 Cal. 256, 258 [162 P. 1019].)

Mandate will not lie to compel the performance of a useless act. The petition is therefore denied. *Page 668

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

Hotchkiss v. Superior Court, 269 P. 524, 204 Cal. 667, 1928 Cal. LEXIS 733 (Cal. 1928).

269 P. 524 (Hotchkiss v. Superior Court) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

City of Pasadena v. Superior Court
298 P. 968 (California Supreme Court, 1931)
People v. Hodges
271 P. 897 (California Supreme Court, 1928)