People v. Sexton
This text of 37 Cal. 532 (People v. Sexton) 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.
Opinion
This is not a case for mandamus. Whether Rundle, Green, and Irvine were entitled to intervene, was a judicial question. The Judge was required to decide it, and he did so. Whether he decided it correctly, is a question which cannot be made in this proceeding. Having allowed the motion to intervene, he could not thereafter enter a judgment for the plaintiff. Instead, therefore, of refusing to act, he has acted, and, having acted judicially, his action cannot be reviewed by mandamus. (Flagley v. Hubbard, 22 Cal. 34; People v. Pratt, 28 Cal. 166; People v. Weston, 28 Cal. 639.)
Mandamus denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
37 Cal. 532, 1869 Cal. LEXIS 92, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sexton-cal-1869.