Searcy v. Superior Court

PREWETT, P. J.,

pro

tem.

This is an application for a writ of prohibition to restrain respondents from proceeding further with certain orders and proposed orders in a divorce action wherein one Mary Louise Searcy is the plaintiff and above-named petitioner is defendant. Said superior court on the ninth day of January, 1920, on due proceedings had in that behalf, made and entered its final order changing the place of trial of said action from said county of Humboldt to the city and county of San Francisco. On the same day the petitioner appealed from said order and his appeal is now pending.

Notwithstanding said change of place of trial, said superior court, respondent herein, upon the usual notice and motion, proceeded to make its further order allowing to said plaintiff Mary Louise, certain sums by way of alimony for her support and also as counsel fees on appeal.

The petitioner insists that said orders are in excess of the jurisdiction of the court. Said court is about to take proceedings against petitioner looking to the enforcement of said orders.

[1]

(1) When the court made its order transferring the cause to the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco it thereby lost, for all purposes, all jurisdiction of the action-

(Chase

v.

Superior Court,

154 Cal. 789, [99 Pac. 355];

Hatch

v.

Galvin,

50 Cal. 441, and

People

v.

Suesser,

142 Cal. 354, [75 Pac. 1093].) In the first of these cases the court uses the following language: “We are of the opinion that the action was transferred to Santa Clara County when the order was finally made and entered in the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco. There must be a moment of time when the court transferring the case loses jurisdiction and the court to which it is transferred acquires jurisdiction. When the court to which the