Thornton v. Hoge

California Supreme Court

Thornton v. Hoge

23 P. 1112, 84 Cal. 231, 1890 Cal. LEXIS 795

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedMay 31, 1890

DocketNo. 13742

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 23 P. 1112 (Thornton v. Hoge) 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

Thornton v. Hoge, 23 P. 1112, 84 Cal. 231, 1890 Cal. LEXIS 795 (Cal. 1890).

Pincite

Opinions

Sharpstein, J.

To an alternative writ of mandate issued out of this court commanding respondent to show cause, if any he may have, why he has failed, neglected, and refused, and still neglects and refuses, to allow, settle, certify, and sign the bill of exceptions, or other proper bill of exceptions, in the petition of the petitioners mentioned, the respondent has filed his answer, in which he denies that he has refused to sign or certify a correct bill of exceptions in the cause mentioned in said petition, and alleges that he has settled, certified, and filed a correct bill.of exceptions in said cause. That he has settled, certified, and filed a bill of exceptions is not controverted by petitioners, but they insist that it is not a correct bill of exceptions, and ask this court to order a reference, in -order that evidence may be taken on that issue. We know of no precedent.for such a proceeding. The writ has accomplished the purpose for which it was issued, and is therefore functus officio. There can be no further proceedings under it. Such being the case, the writ should be discharged.

Writ discharged and proceeding dismissed.

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

Sharpstein, J.

To an alternative writ of mandate issued out of this court commanding respondent to show cause, if any he may have, why he has failed, neglected, and refused, and still neglects and refuses, to allow, settle, certify, and sign the bill of exceptions, or other proper bill of exceptions, in the petition of the petitioners mentioned, the respondent has filed his answer, in which he denies that he has refused to sign or certify a correct bill of exceptions in the cause mentioned in said petition, and alleges that he has settled, certified, and filed a correct bill.of exceptions in said cause. That he has settled, certified, and filed a bill of exceptions is not controverted by petitioners, but they insist that it is not a correct bill of exceptions, and ask this court to order a reference, in -order that evidence may be taken on that issue. We know of no precedent.for such a proceeding. The writ has accomplished the purpose for which it was issued, and is therefore functus officio. There can be no further proceedings under it. Such being the case, the writ should be discharged.

Writ discharged and proceeding dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 P. 1112, 84 Cal. 231, 1890 Cal. LEXIS 795, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thornton-v-hoge-cal-1890.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack