Temple v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court

Temple v. Superior Court

11 P. 699, 70 Cal. 211, 1886 Cal. LEXIS 766

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 26, 1886

DocketNo. 11583

StatusPublished

Cited by26 cases

This text of 11 P. 699 (Temple v. Superior Court) 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

Temple v. Superior Court, 11 P. 699, 70 Cal. 211, 1886 Cal. LEXIS 766 (Cal. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Thornton, J.

This is an application for a writ of mandate to compel the Superior Court of Los Angelés County, Judge W. A. Cheney presiding, to hear a charge of contempt of court made against one B. Newman, which that court had refused to hear, and has dismissed on the ground of want of jurisdiction.

[212]*212We have examined the record, and are of opinion that the matter is within the jurisdiction of the court. The facts stated bring the case clearly within section 1210 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and under such circumstances the court cannot, by holding without reason that it has no jurisdiction of the proceeding, divest itself of jurisdiction, and evade the duty of hearing and determining it. The prayer of the petition should be granted, and it is so ordered.

McKee, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.

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

Thornton, J.

This is an application for a writ of mandate to compel the Superior Court of Los Angelés County, Judge W. A. Cheney presiding, to hear a charge of contempt of court made against one B. Newman, which that court had refused to hear, and has dismissed on the ground of want of jurisdiction.

[212]*212We have examined the record, and are of opinion that the matter is within the jurisdiction of the court. The facts stated bring the case clearly within section 1210 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and under such circumstances the court cannot, by holding without reason that it has no jurisdiction of the proceeding, divest itself of jurisdiction, and evade the duty of hearing and determining it. The prayer of the petition should be granted, and it is so ordered.

McKee, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 P. 699, 70 Cal. 211, 1886 Cal. LEXIS 766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/temple-v-superior-court-cal-1886.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack