Woodworth v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court Feb 10, 1908 No. S.F. No. 4955.Published

Before: THE COURT.

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that prohibition is not an appropriate remedy to challenge the sufficiency of a complaint, as the trial court has jurisdiction to determine whether the complaint states a cause of action.

Issues

Whether the superior court lacks jurisdiction to hear an action to prevent the issuance of a certificate of purchase of state land.
Whether prohibition is the proper remedy when a complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

Disposition. Application denied.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the superior court has no jurisdiction of the action. The objection made by petitioner really is that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.”

“that is a matter for the trial court to determine in the exercise of its jurisdiction, and prohibition will not lie.”

It cannot be held that the state may not, under some circumstances, maintain an action to prevent the issuance of a certificate of purchase of state land, which, as we read the pleadings, is practically the character of the action, the prosecution of which is here sought to be enjoined by prohibition. If this be so, we cannot say that the superior court has no jurisdiction of the action. The objection made by petitioner really is that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. It may be that the complaint here does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, but that is a matter for the trial court to determine in the exercise of its jurisdiction, and prohibition will not lie.

Application denied. *Page 39

Woodworth v. Superior Court

AI Brief

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief