Kerr v. Kerr

California Court of Appeal

Kerr v. Kerr

14 P.2d 316, 126 Cal. App. 160, 1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 482

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedSeptember 21, 1932

DocketDocket No. 8615.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 14 P.2d 316 (Kerr v. Kerr) 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

Kerr v. Kerr, 14 P.2d 316, 126 Cal. App. 160, 1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 482 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

THOMPSON (IRA F.), J.

This is an application for the writ of supersedeas. The action was commenced for the purpose of securing a writ of mandate to compel the appellants to permit an inspection of the books of two corporations. The writ was granted and defendants have perfected an appeal and applied for the writ. An application for the writ of supersedeas is addressed to the sound discretion of the court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. (Luckenbach v. Krempel, 188 Cal. 175 [204 Pac. 591] ; In re Albori, 95 Cal. App. 42 [272 Pac. 321].) The appellants here have failed to demonstrate to us by portions of the record or otherwise a situation which warrants us in interfering with the ordinary processes of the law. It is claimed that certain findings are not supported by the evidence, but we are not furnished with anything further from which we may hazard a guess that the trial court was in error. A legal contention is advanced which may possibly have merit but which on its face seems rather barren of possibilities.

Application for writ denied.

Craig, Acting P. J., and Stephens, J., pro tem., concurred.

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

THOMPSON (IRA F.), J.

This is an application for the writ of supersedeas. The action was commenced for the purpose of securing a writ of mandate to compel the appellants to permit an inspection of the books of two corporations. The writ was granted and defendants have perfected an appeal and applied for the writ. An application for the writ of supersedeas is addressed to the sound discretion of the court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. (Luckenbach v. Krempel, 188 Cal. 175 [204 Pac. 591] ; In re Albori, 95 Cal. App. 42 [272 Pac. 321].) The appellants here have failed to demonstrate to us by portions of the record or otherwise a situation which warrants us in interfering with the ordinary processes of the law. It is claimed that certain findings are not supported by the evidence, but we are not furnished with anything further from which we may hazard a guess that the trial court was in error. A legal contention is advanced which may possibly have merit but which on its face seems rather barren of possibilities.

Application for writ denied.

Craig, Acting P. J., and Stephens, J., pro tem., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 P.2d 316, 126 Cal. App. 160, 1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kerr-v-kerr-calctapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack