Marsh v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court

Marsh v. Superior Court

26 P. 962, 88 Cal. 595, 1891 Cal. LEXIS 741

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedApril 13, 1891

DocketNo. 14300

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 26 P. 962 (Marsh v. Superior Court) 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

Marsh v. Superior Court, 26 P. 962, 88 Cal. 595, 1891 Cal. LEXIS 741 (Cal. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

The Court.

The petition herein is insufficient to authorize the issuance of the writ asked for.

The petition does not show that the order of the superior court removing B. T. Whiteside from the position of assignee or trustee, under the deed of assignment executed for the benefit of the creditors of the insolvent firm of Blum, Eppstein & Co., was made without notice to Whiteside.

The averment that the petition filed in the superior court, asking for the removal of said Whiteside, contained “no allegations of any legal cause why said Whiteside should be removed,” is but the statement of a conclusion of law, and is not equivalent to a direct allegation that said petition did not charge that said Whiteside had violated or was unfit to execute the duties of trustee under said deed of assignment.

Application for writ denied.

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