Pacific Orient v. Sup. Ct. of City Cty. of San Fran.

California Supreme Court

Pacific Orient v. Sup. Ct. of City Cty. of San Fran.

262 P. 1117, 203 Cal. 797, 1928 Cal. LEXIS 864

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 16, 1928

DocketDocket No. S.F. 12825.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 262 P. 1117 (Pacific Orient v. Sup. Ct. of City Cty. of San Fran.) 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

Pacific Orient v. Sup. Ct. of City Cty. of San Fran., 262 P. 1117, 203 Cal. 797, 1928 Cal. LEXIS 864 (Cal. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM CASE. THE COURT.

[1] Application for a writ of prohibition directing the respondent Superior Court to desist from further proceedings in an action brought to compel the petitioner here to submit a dispute or controversy to arbitration pursuant to the terms of the contract entered into before the present law on arbitration became effective. (Code Civ. Proc., secs. 1280 et seq., Stats. 1927, page 404.) The petition is denied on the authority of Inthe Matter of the Application of Berkovitz v. Arbib Houlberg, 230 N.Y. 261 [130 N.E. 288]; Red Cross Line v.Atlantic Fruit Co., 264 U.S. 109 [68 L.Ed. 582, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 174]. (All concur.)

Rehearing denied.

All the Justices concurred.

*Page 1

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

MEMORANDUM CASE. THE COURT.

[1] Application for a writ of prohibition directing the respondent Superior Court to desist from further proceedings in an action brought to compel the petitioner here to submit a dispute or controversy to arbitration pursuant to the terms of the contract entered into before the present law on arbitration became effective. (Code Civ. Proc., secs. 1280 et seq., Stats. 1927, page 404.) The petition is denied on the authority of Inthe Matter of the Application of Berkovitz v. Arbib Houlberg, 230 N.Y. 261 [130 N.E. 288]; Red Cross Line v.Atlantic Fruit Co., 264 U.S. 109 [68 L.Ed. 582, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 174]. (All concur.)

Rehearing denied.

All the Justices concurred.

*Page 1

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 P. 1117, 203 Cal. 797, 1928 Cal. LEXIS 864, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pacific-orient-v-sup-ct-of-city-cty-of-san-fran-cal-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack