Scott v. Superior Court of Yolo Cty.

California Supreme Court

Scott v. Superior Court of Yolo Cty.

16 P. 547, 75 Cal. 114, 1888 Cal. LEXIS 488

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 11, 1888

DocketNo. 12422

StatusPublished

This text of 16 P. 547 (Scott v. Superior Court of Yolo Cty.) 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

Scott v. Superior Court of Yolo Cty., 16 P. 547, 75 Cal. 114, 1888 Cal. LEXIS 488 (Cal. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

McFarland, J.

J. —This is a proceeding in mandamus, commenced in this court. An alternative writ (by some inadvertence) was issued.

The petition shows that one Hays obtained judgment against petitioners in a justice’s court for $57.50 and costs; that Hays appealed to the superior court, where, on a trial with a jury, he obtained a judgment against petitioners for $70 and costs; that in the superior court petitioners filed a supplemental answer, showing that they had paid the amount of the judgment rendered in the justice’s court, and that the superior court (respondent herein) refused to admit evidence tending to prove such payment. The prayer is, that said superior court be commanded to permit petitioners to introduce such evidence.

All this simply means that this court should by a writ of mandate compel a superior court to reverse its ruling [115]*115on a question involving the admissibility of certain offered evidence; and this, too, in a case where the superior court is the highest appellate court. Such a question, of course, cannot be reached by a writ of mandate, though it be stretched beyond the point to which the most extreme case has ever carried it.

And it is difficult to understand what benefit petitioners could expect to derive from the writ in this case, even if it should be granted. After a case has been tried, a verdict rendered, and judgment entered, there is nothing, upon which such a writ could operate.

The prayer of petitioners is denied and the proceeding dismissed.

Searls, C. J., Thoenton, J., Shaepstein, J., Pateeson, J., and McKinstey, J., concurred.

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

McFarland, J.

J. —This is a proceeding in mandamus, commenced in this court. An alternative writ (by some inadvertence) was issued.

The petition shows that one Hays obtained judgment against petitioners in a justice’s court for $57.50 and costs; that Hays appealed to the superior court, where, on a trial with a jury, he obtained a judgment against petitioners for $70 and costs; that in the superior court petitioners filed a supplemental answer, showing that they had paid the amount of the judgment rendered in the justice’s court, and that the superior court (respondent herein) refused to admit evidence tending to prove such payment. The prayer is, that said superior court be commanded to permit petitioners to introduce such evidence.

All this simply means that this court should by a writ of mandate compel a superior court to reverse its ruling [115]*115on a question involving the admissibility of certain offered evidence; and this, too, in a case where the superior court is the highest appellate court. Such a question, of course, cannot be reached by a writ of mandate, though it be stretched beyond the point to which the most extreme case has ever carried it.

And it is difficult to understand what benefit petitioners could expect to derive from the writ in this case, even if it should be granted. After a case has been tried, a verdict rendered, and judgment entered, there is nothing, upon which such a writ could operate.

The prayer of petitioners is denied and the proceeding dismissed.

Searls, C. J., Thoenton, J., Shaepstein, J., Pateeson, J., and McKinstey, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 P. 547, 75 Cal. 114, 1888 Cal. LEXIS 488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-superior-court-of-yolo-cty-cal-1888.