Donohue v. Superior Court (1892) · DecisionDepot

Donohue v. Superior Court

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Feb 4, 1892 No. No. 14646Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the question of whether a party is entitled to a jury trial in a quiet title action is a matter within the superior court's jurisdiction, and any error in that determination must be addressed through the ordinary appellate process rather than a writ of mandate.

Issues

Whether a writ of mandate is the appropriate remedy to compel a jury trial in a quiet title action when the superior court has denied such a request.

Disposition. Dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Whether or not the petitioners should have a jury trial of said action is a question of law which the superior court has jurisdiction to hear and determine”

“if any error has been, or shall be, committed in determining that question, the petitioners have a sufficient remedy in the ordinary course of law by appeal.”

Synopsis

Petition to the Supreme Court for a writ of mandate to the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and John Hunt, judge thereof. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

The Court. Petitioners aver that they are defendants in an action pending in th.e court of respondents, in which one Hinkel is plaintiff; that said action is an action to quiet title to certain described lands; that petitioners have answered in said action, setting up certain defenses; that petitioners have demanded a jury trial of [253]said action; that their demand has been refused, and that the respondents are about to try said action without a jury. Wherefore petitioners pray for a writ of mandate, commanding respondents to comply with petitioners’ demand for a jury, and “ not to undertake to try or to set said action for trial without a jury.”

Whether or not the petitioners should have a jury trial of said action is a question of law which the superior court has jurisdiction to hear and determine; and if any error has been, or shall be, committed in determining that question, the petitioners have a sufficient remedy in the ordinary course of law by appeal.

■ The prayer of petitioners is denied, and the proceeding dismissed.

Donohue v. Superior Court

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief