Mitchell v. Superior Court

219 P.2d 861, 98 Cal. App. 2d 304, 1950 Cal. App. LEXIS 1846
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedJuly 6, 1950
DocketCiv. 17929
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 219 P.2d 861 (Mitchell 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
Mitchell v. Superior Court, 219 P.2d 861, 98 Cal. App. 2d 304, 1950 Cal. App. LEXIS 1846 (Cal. Ct. App. 1950).

Opinion

THE COURT.

Petitioner has pending in the superior court an action for the partition of real property. Trial was had for two days.

While plaintiff was married to defendant, the property was acquired as community property. In 1931 petitioner was granted a divorce from defendant in the State of Texas. Texas, of course, could not adjudicate title to California real property. Defendant as minister of a church uses the property, which is improved with a church building, without paying anything to petitioner.

Petitioner contends that the court should have partitioned the property, either in kind, or by sale and division of the proceeds. The court made a minute order, finding that at the time the property was acquired petitioner’s equity in it was $500. Apparently no judgment has yet been rendered.

While petitioner presents a convincing argument, we think her remedy is by appeal. The rules respecting high prerogative writs have been recently reviewed and restated in Phelan v. Superior Court, 35 Cal.2d 363 [217 P.2d 951]. There it is said: “Where . . . there is a right to an immediate review by appeal, that remedy is almost as speedy as a writ proceeding, under present practice, and should be considered adequate unless petitioner can show some special reason why *305 it is rendered inadequate by the particular circumstances of his ease.”

The most petitioner shows in this regard is that an appeal will take time and cost money. This is insufficient.

For the reasons given in Phelan v. Superior Court, supra, and in Robinson v. Superior Court, 35 Cal.2d 379 [218 P.2d 10], the petition is denied.

Petitioner’s application for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied August 31,1950.

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

Related

People v. Superior Court (Solorio) CA5
California Court of Appeal, 2022
Hogya v. Superior Court
75 Cal. App. 3d 122 (California Court of Appeal, 1977)
Lohr v. Superior Court
244 P.2d 5 (California Court of Appeal, 1952)
Jollie v. Superior Court
237 P.2d 641 (California Supreme Court, 1951)
Johnston v. Superior Court
237 P.2d 344 (California Court of Appeal, 1951)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
219 P.2d 861, 98 Cal. App. 2d 304, 1950 Cal. App. LEXIS 1846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-v-superior-court-calctapp-1950.