From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marsh v. Superior Court

Supreme Court of California
Apr 13, 1891
88 Cal. 595 (Cal. 1891)

Opinion

         Application to the Supreme Court for a writ of review to the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco.

         COUNSEL

          Carroll Cook, and J. E. Foulds, for Petitioner.


         JUDGES: In Bank.

         OPINION

         THE COURT          The petition herein is insufficient to authorize the issuance of the writ asked for.

         The petition does not show that the order of the superior court removing B. T. Whiteside from the position of assignee or trustee, under the deed of assignment executed for the benefit of the creditors of the insolvent firm of Blum, Eppstein & Co., was made without notice to Whiteside.

         The averment that the petition filed in the superior court, asking for the removal of said Whiteside, contained "no allegations of any legal cause why said Whiteside should be removed," is but the statement of a conclusion of law, and is not equivalent to a direct allegation [26 P. 963] that said petition did not charge that said Whiteside had violated or was unfit to execute the duties of trustee under said deed of assignment.

         Application for writ denied.


Summaries of

Marsh v. Superior Court

Supreme Court of California
Apr 13, 1891
88 Cal. 595 (Cal. 1891)
Case details for

Marsh v. Superior Court

Case Details

Full title:GEORGE T. MARSH, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY…

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Apr 13, 1891

Citations

88 Cal. 595 (Cal. 1891)
26 P. 962

Citing Cases

Board of Fire Comrs. v. Bd. of Supervisors

[5] It is proper to deny the writ unless the application shows affirmatively the excess of jurisdiction. (…

Wells, Fargo & Co. v. McCarthy

If the allegation respecting them should be considered a mere legal conclusion, then the allegation of…