Zeigler v. Superior Court

24 P.2d 899, 134 Cal. App. 88, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 101
California Court of Appeal·Decided August 30, 1933·No. Docket No. 9243.·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

KNIGHT, J.

Petitioner, a prisoner in the state prison at Folsom, has made application in propria persona to this court for a writ of mandate to compel the Superior Court in and for the City and County of San Francisco to hear and determine a petition for a writ of habeas corpus which he claims was heretofore filed by him in said court. It appears from the present application, however, that at the time petitioner claims to have instituted said habeas corpiis proceeding in the city and county of San Francisco he was imprisoned in the state prison at Folsom, Sacramento County; and the Constitution provides that superior courts *89 have jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus on behalf of any person in actual custody, “in their respective counties”. (Art. VI, sec. 5, Const.) It is evident, therefore, that there was no legal duty imposed upon the Superior Court in and for the City and County of San Francisco to entertain said proceeding; and upon that ground the application for a writ of mandate is denied.

Tyler, P. J., and Cashin, J., concurred.

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

Zeigler v. Superior Court, 24 P.2d 899, 134 Cal. App. 88, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 101 (Cal. Ct. App. 1933).

24 P.2d 899 (Zeigler v. Superior Court) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re Haro
458 P.2d 500 (California Supreme Court, 1969)
Carrara v. Superior Court
248 P.2d 954 (California Court of Appeal, 1952)
People v. Dunlop
227 P.2d 281 (California Court of Appeal, 1951)