Clayton v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal May 5, 1933 No. Docket No. 9107.Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the respondent court possessed the jurisdiction to hear and determine a motion to dissolve an attachment, regardless of whether the resulting decision was legally correct.

Issues

Whether the respondent court had jurisdiction to hear and determine a motion to dissolve an attachment.

Disposition. Denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The respondent court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the motion to dissolve petitioner's attachment”

“this power did not depend upon the correctness of the decision”

THE COURT.

The petition for an alternative writ of prohibition is denied.

[1] The respondent court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the motion to dissolve petitioner's attachment (TruckOwners Shippers, Inc., v. Superior Court, 194 Cal. 146 [228 P. 19]), and this power did not depend upon the correctness of the decision (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1102; Dahlgren v. SuperiorCourt, 8 Cal.App. 622 [97 P. 681]; People v. San Diego,71 Cal.App. 421 [236 P. 377]). *Page 620

Clayton v. Superior Court

AI Brief

THE COURT.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief