From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Buckner v. Veuve

Supreme Court of California
Apr 6, 1883
63 Cal. 304 (Cal. 1883)

Opinion

         APPLICATION for a writ of prohibition. The petitioner was elected justice of the peace of San Jose Township at the election held January 8, 1883. The respondent was elected justice of the peace for the city of San Jose under the provisions of section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By virtue of the Act of March 17, 1874, the petitioner, as justice of the peace of the township, is ex-officio police justice or judge of the police court of the city of San Jose.

         Petitioner alleged that on March 22, 1883, the respondent ousted him of the office of police judge for the city of San Jose, and wrongfully assumed to discharge the duties of that office, and prayed for a writ of prohibition, commanding the respondent to desist and refrain from discharging the duties of the office.

         COUNSEL:

         Wm. B. Hardy, for Petitioner.


         OPINION

         PER CURIAM.

         Quo warranto lies to prevent the usurpation of an office. Prohibition is not available as a remedy for that purpose.

         Application for a writ of prohibition denied.


Summaries of

Buckner v. Veuve

Supreme Court of California
Apr 6, 1883
63 Cal. 304 (Cal. 1883)
Case details for

Buckner v. Veuve

Case Details

Full title:R. B. BUCKNER, PETITIONER, v. W. P. VEUVE, RESPONDENT

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Apr 6, 1883

Citations

63 Cal. 304 (Cal. 1883)

Citing Cases

Walcott v. Wells

That question can only be determined in a direct proceeding brought for that purpose, upon information in the…

People v. Toal

We think [24 P. 605] this point would be well taken if this were an attempt to test the right of some one to…