Pool v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Pool v. Superior Court

84 P. 53, 2 Cal. App. 533, 1905 Cal. App. LEXIS 216

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedDecember 23, 1905

DocketCiv. No. 186.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 84 P. 53 (Pool 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

Pool v. Superior Court, 84 P. 53, 2 Cal. App. 533, 1905 Cal. App. LEXIS 216 (Cal. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

McLAUGHLIN, J.

The petitioner brought an action in the justice’s court, and on the trial, judgment was there rendered against him. He thereupon appealed to the superior court, and during the progress of a trial de novo was nonsuited. He seeks to have the judgment and rulings of the superior court reviewed by this court through the medium of a writ of error. This cannot be done. The appellate jurisdiction of this court is confined to appeals from superior courts, and the issuance of writs necessary or proper to the complete exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. (Const., art. VI, sec. 4.) No appeal lies to this court from any judgment or order in the case. (Edsall v. Short, 122 Cal. 533, [55 Pac. 327].) As this court has no appellate jurisdiction, certainly no writ is necessary or proper in the premises, unless it be one of the prerogative writs which this court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction may issue. Manfestly, certiorari is the only writ which could, by possibility, be appropriate, and it is well settled that this writ will not issue to correct errors or irregularities within the jurisdiction of an inferior tribunal. (Borchard *534 v. Supervisors, 144 Cal. 14, [77 Pac. 708].) The jurisdiction of the superior court cannot be doubted, and hence the judgment there rendered is beyond review by this court. The writ is denied.

Chipman, P. J., and Buckles, J., concurred.

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

McLAUGHLIN, J.

The petitioner brought an action in the justice’s court, and on the trial, judgment was there rendered against him. He thereupon appealed to the superior court, and during the progress of a trial de novo was nonsuited. He seeks to have the judgment and rulings of the superior court reviewed by this court through the medium of a writ of error. This cannot be done. The appellate jurisdiction of this court is confined to appeals from superior courts, and the issuance of writs necessary or proper to the complete exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. (Const., art. VI, sec. 4.) No appeal lies to this court from any judgment or order in the case. (Edsall v. Short, 122 Cal. 533, [55 Pac. 327].) As this court has no appellate jurisdiction, certainly no writ is necessary or proper in the premises, unless it be one of the prerogative writs which this court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction may issue. Manfestly, certiorari is the only writ which could, by possibility, be appropriate, and it is well settled that this writ will not issue to correct errors or irregularities within the jurisdiction of an inferior tribunal. (Borchard *534 v. Supervisors, 144 Cal. 14, [77 Pac. 708].) The jurisdiction of the superior court cannot be doubted, and hence the judgment there rendered is beyond review by this court. The writ is denied.

Chipman, P. J., and Buckles, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 P. 53, 2 Cal. App. 533, 1905 Cal. App. LEXIS 216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pool-v-superior-court-calctapp-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack