Hoffman v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court Jun 17, 1925 No. S. F. No. 11652Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court denied a petition for a writ of mandate to substitute a bankruptcy trustee as a defendant in a pending action because the petitioner failed to demonstrate that intervention was not a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.

Issues

Whether a writ of mandate is appropriate to compel the substitution of a bankruptcy trustee as a defendant in a pending action.
Whether the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by intervention.

Disposition. Denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“No showing is presented from which it appears to us that a plain, speedy and adequate remedy (Code Civ. Proc.,- sec. 1086) is not available to petitioner in the premises by intervention.”

“The petition is denied.”

THE COURT. This COURT COURT. a petition for a writ of mandate

to compel the respondents to enter an order substituting petitioner, as trustee in bankruptcy of the estate of J. Charles King, a bankrupt, in place of said King as defendant, in an action now pending in the respondent [279]court. No showing is presented from which it appears to us that a plain, speedy and adequate remedy (Code Civ. Proc.,- sec. 1086) is not available to petitioner in the premises by intervention. (Code Civ. Proc., see. 387.),

The petition is denied.

Petition for modification of opinion denied.

All the Justices concurred.

Hoffman v. Superior Court

AI Brief

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief