Middlebrook v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court

Middlebrook v. Superior Court

134 P.2d 241, 21 Cal. 2d 579, 1943 Cal. LEXIS 284

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 11, 1943

DocketL. A. 18000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 134 P.2d 241 (Middlebrook 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

Middlebrook v. Superior Court, 134 P.2d 241, 21 Cal. 2d 579, 1943 Cal. LEXIS 284 (Cal. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

EDMONDS, J.

— In an original proceeding, a writ of certiorari was issued to review an order made by the probate court in the matter of the Estate of Ella Wallace Perkins, deceased, requiring the administratrix to repossess property which had been delivered to her, Bose Dunlap Franklin and Jessie W. Chapman pursuant to a judgment which was later modified and has now been affirmed. (In re Perkins’ Estate, ante, p. 561 [134 P.2d 231].) Upon the day set for hearing the matter, Clifford L. Perkins, the real party in interest, moved to discharge the writ and dismiss the proceeding upon the ground that no return had been filed, and consequently there is nothing before the court to review.

Although it is the duty of the court or officer to whom a writ of certiorari is directed to prepare a return, yet it is incumbent upon the petitioner for the writ to see that the return is made. To accomplish this, he may, if necessary, invoke the aid of the court which issued the writ to compel compliance with its requirements. As the person interested in having the action of the inferior tribunal reviewed, it is *580 as much the duty of the petitioner to furnish the record to be reviewed as it is the duty of an appellant to have a transcript before the court. (I. X. L. Lime Co. v. Superior Court, 143 Cal. 170 [76 P. 973] ; Goodrich v. Superior Court, 92 Cal.App. 695 [268 P. 669] ; James v. Police Court, 39 Cal.App. 362 [178 P. 867].) For on certiorari, the court is limited to a review of the properly authenticated record of the proceeding. (Borchard v. Board of Supervisors, 144 Cal. 10 [77 P. 708]; Stumpf v. Board of Supervisors, 131 Cal. 364 [63 P. 663, 82 Am.St.Rep. 350] ; Goodrich v. Superior Court, supra; Donovan v. Board of Police Commissioners, 32 Cal.App. 392 [163 P. 69].)

The petitioner has neither complied with this fundamental rule of procedure nor offered any excuse for the lack of a record. The writ must therefore be discharged and the proceeding dismissed.

It is so. ordered.

Gibson, C. J., Shenk, J., Curtis, J., Carter, J., Traynor, J., and Schauer, J., concurred.

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

EDMONDS, J.

— In an original proceeding, a writ of certiorari was issued to review an order made by the probate court in the matter of the Estate of Ella Wallace Perkins, deceased, requiring the administratrix to repossess property which had been delivered to her, Bose Dunlap Franklin and Jessie W. Chapman pursuant to a judgment which was later modified and has now been affirmed. (In re Perkins’ Estate, ante, p. 561 [134 P.2d 231].) Upon the day set for hearing the matter, Clifford L. Perkins, the real party in interest, moved to discharge the writ and dismiss the proceeding upon the ground that no return had been filed, and consequently there is nothing before the court to review.

Although it is the duty of the court or officer to whom a writ of certiorari is directed to prepare a return, yet it is incumbent upon the petitioner for the writ to see that the return is made. To accomplish this, he may, if necessary, invoke the aid of the court which issued the writ to compel compliance with its requirements. As the person interested in having the action of the inferior tribunal reviewed, it is *580 as much the duty of the petitioner to furnish the record to be reviewed as it is the duty of an appellant to have a transcript before the court. (I. X. L. Lime Co. v. Superior Court, 143 Cal. 170 [76 P. 973] ; Goodrich v. Superior Court, 92 Cal.App. 695 [268 P. 669] ; James v. Police Court, 39 Cal.App. 362 [178 P. 867].) For on certiorari, the court is limited to a review of the properly authenticated record of the proceeding. (Borchard v. Board of Supervisors, 144 Cal. 10 [77 P. 708]; Stumpf v. Board of Supervisors, 131 Cal. 364 [63 P. 663, 82 Am.St.Rep. 350] ; Goodrich v. Superior Court, supra; Donovan v. Board of Police Commissioners, 32 Cal.App. 392 [163 P. 69].)

The petitioner has neither complied with this fundamental rule of procedure nor offered any excuse for the lack of a record. The writ must therefore be discharged and the proceeding dismissed.

It is so. ordered.

Gibson, C. J., Shenk, J., Curtis, J., Carter, J., Traynor, J., and Schauer, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 P.2d 241, 21 Cal. 2d 579, 1943 Cal. LEXIS 284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/middlebrook-v-superior-court-cal-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack