Messer v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Messer v. Superior Court

73 P.2d 897, 23 Cal. App. 2d 743, 1937 Cal. App. LEXIS 736

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedNovember 18, 1937

DocketCiv. No. 2138

StatusPublished

This text of 73 P.2d 897 (Messer v. Superior Court) 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

Messer v. Superior Court, 73 P.2d 897, 23 Cal. App. 2d 743, 1937 Cal. App. LEXIS 736 (Cal. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

BARNARD, P. J.

The facts which are material here are identical, or similar in all respects, with and to those involved in Fisher v. Superior Court, this day decided (ante, p. 528 [73 Pac. (2d) 892]). The petitioner here raises the additional point that the order consolidating the civil action with the probate proceeding was unauthorized and not founded on law. If we are correct in the conclusion announced in the other case, that a transfer of the civil action to the probate jurisdiction of the same court after the statutory time for starting a contest had expired would confer no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter, it is unnecessary to consider whether or not the consolidation, through which the transfer was sought to be accomplished, was particularly authorized by law. For the reasons given in the case referred to and on the authority thereof the petitioner herein is entitled to a writ.

The peremptory writ will issue as prayed for.

Marks, J., and Jennings, J., concurred.

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

BARNARD, P. J.

The facts which are material here are identical, or similar in all respects, with and to those involved in Fisher v. Superior Court, this day decided (ante, p. 528 [73 Pac. (2d) 892]). The petitioner here raises the additional point that the order consolidating the civil action with the probate proceeding was unauthorized and not founded on law. If we are correct in the conclusion announced in the other case, that a transfer of the civil action to the probate jurisdiction of the same court after the statutory time for starting a contest had expired would confer no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter, it is unnecessary to consider whether or not the consolidation, through which the transfer was sought to be accomplished, was particularly authorized by law. For the reasons given in the case referred to and on the authority thereof the petitioner herein is entitled to a writ.

The peremptory writ will issue as prayed for.

Marks, J., and Jennings, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 P.2d 897, 23 Cal. App. 2d 743, 1937 Cal. App. LEXIS 736, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/messer-v-superior-court-calctapp-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack