From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McCue v. Superior Court

Supreme Court of California
Jan 14, 1887
71 Cal. 545 (Cal. 1887)

Opinion

         Application for a writ of certiorari to review an order of the Superior Court of Marin County modifying a judgment which had theretofore been rendered in favor of the petitioner in a certain action entitled McCue v. Tunstead. At the date of the application for the writ, the time limited by law for appealing from the order had expired.

         COUNSEL:

         James S. McCue, in pro per ., for Petitioner.

          Joseph Kirk, for Respondent.


         JUDGES: In Bank. McFarland, J., concurring.

         OPINION

         THE COURT

          [12 P. 616] The writ must be dismissed. The writ will not lie where there is an appeal, and if there is an appeal, but the time for taking it has elapsed, the writ will not lie. (In re Stuttmeister, ante, p. 322; Miliken v. Huber , 21 Cal. 166; Bennett v. Wallace , 43 Cal. 25.)

         Writ dismissed.

         CONCUR

         McFarland, J., concurring.

         I concur in the judgment; but in my opinion there might be a case where, on account of unusual circumstances, a writ of review would lie although there had been, at one time, a right of appeal, -- as intimated in Kimple v. Superior Court of San Francisco , 55 Cal. 136.


Summaries of

McCue v. Superior Court

Supreme Court of California
Jan 14, 1887
71 Cal. 545 (Cal. 1887)
Case details for

McCue v. Superior Court

Case Details

Full title:JAMES S. McCUE, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF MARIN COUNTY, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Jan 14, 1887

Citations

71 Cal. 545 (Cal. 1887)
12 P. 615

Citing Cases

Hall v. Justice's Court of City and County of San Francisco

Certiorari will not lie to annul a judgment from which an appeal may be taken, or after the time to appeal…

State Bd. of Equalization v. Superior Ct.

[4] Finally, as to the contention of the petitioners that the remedy by appeal would be totally inadequate,…