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

262 P. 1117, 203 Cal. 797, 1928 Cal. LEXIS 864
California Supreme Court·Decided January 16, 1928·No. Docket No. S.F. 12825.·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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

262 P. 1117 (Pacific Orient v. Sup. Ct. of City Cty. of San Fran.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Clogston v. Schiff-Lang Co., Inc.
41 P.2d 555 (California Supreme Court, 1935)