Chester v. Colby

6 Citing cases

  1. Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal

    17 Cal.2d 280 (Cal. 1941)   Cited 975 times
    Holding that where an administrative remedy is provided by statute, relief must be sought from the administrative body and exhausted before the courts will act

    The writ was denied. Chester v. Colby, 52 Cal. 516, in which a demurrer raising the jurisdictional point was pending and undetermined, is to the same effect. In neither case had the lower court taken any action in the cause at the time prohibition was sought; it was simply considering whether or not it had jurisdiction to act.

  2. Fischer v. Superior Court of County of Tuolumne

    98 Cal. 67 (Cal. 1893)   Cited 2 times

    The writ should also be denied because the very question of fact raised before this court on this application had already been submitted to the trial court. (Chester v. Colby , 52 Cal. 516.)          Scrivner & Schell, and Wheaton, Kalloch & Kierce, for Petitioner.

  3. Havemeyer v. Superior Court

    84 Cal. 327 (Cal. 1890)   Cited 121 times
    In Havemeyer v. Superior Court, 84 Cal. 327, 24 P. 121, 10 L.R.A. 627, 18 Am.St.Rep. 192, it was held that upon the dissolution of a trading corporation its property belongs, after payment of its debts, to those who were stockholders at the time of the dissolution.

    The court having jurisdiction to appoint a receiver, no irregularity in the appointment can be considered upon prohibition. (People v. Supervisors , 47 Cal. 81; People v. Whitney , 47 Cal. 584; Chester v. Colby , 52 Cal. 516; Bandy v. Ransom , 54 Cal. 87; Clark v. Superior Court , 55 Cal. 199; Wreden v. Superior Court , 55 Cal. 504; Coker v. Superior Court , 58 Cal. 178; Hedges v. Superior Court , 67 Cal. 405; Ah Goon v. Superior Court , 61 Cal. 555.) When duly appointed receiver, he became a ministerial officer.

  4. American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers v. Superior Court

    207 Cal.App.2d 676 (Cal. Ct. App. 1962)   Cited 17 times

    [10] The court answers this question as follows: "This question must be answered in the negative. The law is settled that, if the question of the jurisdiction of an inferior court has been raised by an appropriate objection, an appellate court will not issue a writ of prohibition to restrain further proceedings in the lower court until the inferior court has ruled upon the question which has been presented for its determination. ( Chester v. Colby, 52 Cal. 516, 517; 21 Cal.Jur. (1925) 628; 50 Cor.Jur. (1930) 697.)" To the same effect see Sayegh v. Superior Court, 44 Cal.2d 814, 815 [ 285 P.2d 267]; Baird v. Superior Court, 204 Cal. 408, 415 [267 P. 640]; Heinecke v. Superior Court, 27 Cal.App.2d 480, 482 [ 81 P.2d 179].

  5. Noland v. Superior Court

    26 Cal.App.2d 708 (Cal. Ct. App. 1938)   Cited 6 times
    In Noland v. Superior Court, 26 Cal.App.2d 708, 709 [ 80 P.2d 76], this question is posed: "If the question of an inferior court's jurisdiction has been raised by an appropriate objection and remains undetermined in said court, will a writ of prohibition issue to restrain said court from taking further proceedings in the case before it?"

    This question must be answered in the negative. The law is settled that, if the question of the jurisdiction of an inferior court has been raised by an appropriate objection, an appellate court will not issue a writ of prohibition to restrain further proceedings in the lower court until the inferior court has ruled upon the question which has been presented for its determination. ( Chester v. Colby, 52 Cal. 516, 517; 21 Cal. Jur. (1925) 628; 50 Cor. Jur. (1930) 697.) For the foregoing reasons the application for a writ of prohibition is denied and the alternative writ heretofore issued is discharged.

  6. Phillips v. Superior Court

    109 Cal.App. 622 (Cal. Ct. App. 1930)   Cited 1 times

    [2] So far as the contempt proceeding against petitioner is concerned the petition does not show that he has in any way called the attention of the court below to his claim that such court is acting in such proceeding without jurisdiction by reason of the alleged invalidity of the orders appointing said receiver, and the authorities hold that the remedy in such a case is for petitioner to first present his defense to the lower court upon the hearing of the contempt proceeding. ( Wessels v. Superior Court, 200 Cal. 403 [ 253 P. 135]; Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Superior Court, 59 Cal. 471, 475; Chester v. Colby, 52 Cal. 516. ) The Supreme Court in the case of Commercial Bank v. Superior Court, 192 Cal. 395, 397 [ 220 P. 422, 423], in laying down the rule above mentioned also uses the following language: "However, the trial of contempt proceedings has sometimes been stayed by a writ of prohibition where it is manifest from previous orders or decisions of the court that it will proceed notwithstanding a lack of jurisdiction."