From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hull v. Superior Court of Shasta County

Supreme Court of California
Feb 16, 1883
63 Cal. 179 (Cal. 1883)

Summary

In Hull v. Superior Court, 63 Cal. 179, [24 P. 138] it was said that prohibition was not available to prevent the acts of a de facto ministerial officer, nor to prevent judicial acts already done.

Summary of this case from Havemeyer v. Superior Court

Opinion

         APPLICATION for a writ of prohibition.

         COUNSEL:

         Clay W. Taylor, A. M. Rosborough, and R. A. Redman, for Petitioner.

         I. S. Belcher, and Chipman & Garter, for Respondents.


         OPINION

         The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

         PER CURIAM.

         The demurrer to the petition in this proceeding must be sustained. The petition alleges that the Superior Court, " has recognized, does recognize, and, unless prohibited, will continue to recognize and take judicial notice of the acts of W. E. Hopping," who claims to act as sheriff and tax collector of Shasta County.

         Prohibition is not available as a remedy to prevent the acts of a de facto or de jure ministerial officer ( People v. Board of Election, 54 Cal. 404; Le Conte v. Berkeley, 57 Cal. 269); nor to prevent judicial acts already done.

         The right of one claiming to act as sheriff of a county can only be questioned in a proper proceeding by information in the nature of a quo warranto. (Hull v. Superior Court, ante.)

         Demurrer sustained and writ dismissed.


Summaries of

Hull v. Superior Court of Shasta County

Supreme Court of California
Feb 16, 1883
63 Cal. 179 (Cal. 1883)

In Hull v. Superior Court, 63 Cal. 179, [24 P. 138] it was said that prohibition was not available to prevent the acts of a de facto ministerial officer, nor to prevent judicial acts already done.

Summary of this case from Havemeyer v. Superior Court
Case details for

Hull v. Superior Court of Shasta County

Case Details

Full title:SYLVESTER HULL, PETITIONER, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SHASTA COUNTY ET AL.…

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Feb 16, 1883

Citations

63 Cal. 179 (Cal. 1883)

Citing Cases

Havemeyer v. Superior Court

Its function is not and does not purport to have the effect to nullify or in the least affect any judicial…

Valentine v. Police Court

The writ will not issue to restrain an act, unless it involves the exercise of judicial functions. (2 Bailey…