Standard Pipe & Supply Co. v. California Northern Corp.

Ninth Circuit

Standard Pipe & Supply Co. v. California Northern Corp.

73 F.2d 102, 1934 U.S. App. LEXIS 2609

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 10, 1934

DocketNo. 7603

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 73 F.2d 102 (Standard Pipe & Supply Co. v. California Northern Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Standard Pipe & Supply Co. v. California Northern Corp., 73 F.2d 102, 1934 U.S. App. LEXIS 2609 (9th Cir. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

WILBUR, Circuit Judge.

Petitioner prays for writ of mandamus to compel the trial judge to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction, which motion was taken under advisement on February 16, 1932. It is alleged in the petition that the trial court, after having expressed the opinion that the court was without jurisdiction, proceeded to administer the affairs of the receivership and was continuing so to do without a decision upon the motion to dismiss. The petition for writ of mandamus was verified April 25, 1933, and filed in this court on August 31, 1934. It now appears that in the meantime the trial court had fully concluded the matter in the court below and had entered its final decree on December 18,1933. Appropriate remedy in such a case is by appeal, and not by mandamus. Curtis v. Paramount Famous Lasky Corp. (C. C. A.) 38 F. (2d) 476; Curtis v. American Tel. & Tel. Co. (C. C. A.) 38 F.(2d) 476; In re Atlantic City R. R., 164 U. S. 633., 17 S. Ct. 208, 41 L. Ed. 579.

The petition is denied.

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

WILBUR, Circuit Judge.

Petitioner prays for writ of mandamus to compel the trial judge to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction, which motion was taken under advisement on February 16, 1932. It is alleged in the petition that the trial court, after having expressed the opinion that the court was without jurisdiction, proceeded to administer the affairs of the receivership and was continuing so to do without a decision upon the motion to dismiss. The petition for writ of mandamus was verified April 25, 1933, and filed in this court on August 31, 1934. It now appears that in the meantime the trial court had fully concluded the matter in the court below and had entered its final decree on December 18,1933. Appropriate remedy in such a case is by appeal, and not by mandamus. Curtis v. Paramount Famous Lasky Corp. (C. C. A.) 38 F. (2d) 476; Curtis v. American Tel. & Tel. Co. (C. C. A.) 38 F.(2d) 476; In re Atlantic City R. R., 164 U. S. 633., 17 S. Ct. 208, 41 L. Ed. 579.

The petition is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 F.2d 102, 1934 U.S. App. LEXIS 2609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/standard-pipe-supply-co-v-california-northern-corp-ca9-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack