People v. Sexton
Before: Sanderson
Synopsis
Mandamus.—If an action bo tried by a District Court without a jury, and counsel for the plaintiff bo instructed by the Court to draw a judgment in his favor, but before the judgment was finally passed, strangers claiming to have succeeded to the title of the defendant move for a stay of proceedings and to bo allowed to intervene, and the motion is allowed, this Court will not by mandamus compel the District Court to set aside the order and enter a final judgment in the case.
Idem.—A motion for leave to intervene in an action, made at any stage of the proceedings, presents a judicial question, the decision of which cannot be reviewed or controlled by this Court by mandamus, however erroneous it may bo.
By the Court, Sanderson, J.: This is not a case for mandamus. Whether Rundle, Green, and Irvine were entitled to intervene, was a judicial question. The Judge was required to decide it, and he did so. Whether he decided it correctly, is a question which cannot be made in this proceeding. Having allowed the motion to intervene, he could not thereafter enter a judgment for the plaintiff. Instead, therefore, of refusing to act, he has acted, and, having acted judicially, his action cannot be reviewed by mandamus. (Flagley v. Hubbard, 22 Cal. 34; People v. Pratt, 28 Cal. 166; People v. Weston, 28 Cal. 639.)
Mandamus denied.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)