Clayton v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal May 5, 1933 No. Civ. No. 9107Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the respondent court possessed the jurisdiction to hear and determine a motion to dissolve an attachment, regardless of whether the resulting decision was legally correct.

Issues

Whether the respondent court had jurisdiction to hear and determine a motion to dissolve an attachment.

Disposition. Denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The respondent court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the motion to dissolve petitioner’s attachment”

“this power did not depend upon the correctness of the decision”

THE COURT. The petition for an alternative writ of prohibition is denied.

The respondent court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the motion to dissolve petitioner’s attachment (Truck Owners & Shippers, Inc., v. Superior Court, 194 Cal. 146 [228 Pac. 19]), and this power did not depend upon the correctness of the decision (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1102; Dahlgren v. Superior Court, 8 Cal. App. 622 [97 Pac. 681] ; People v. San Diego, 71 Cal. App. 421 [236 Pac. 377]).

Clayton v. Superior Court

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief