<p>[1] Justice of Peace—Disqualification to Practice Law Before Recorder’s Court in County of Residence.—In view of the nature and jurisdiction of a recorder’s court, it being practically a justice’s court, it comes within the spirit and policy of the provision of section 171 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which declares that no justice of the peace shall practice law before any justice’s court in the county in which he resides.</p> <p>[2] Mandamus—Acts not Enforceable—Mandamus will not lie to compel the performance of act's which are illegal, contrary to public policy, or which tend to aid in an unlawful purpose.</p>
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Denied · Decided 1919-12-18
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently February 2015
4 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
¶2
County, seeks a writ of
mandamus
to compel respondent, city recorder of the city of Taft, in Kern County, to allow him to practice law before him. Section 171 of the Code of Civil Procedure, provides “nor shall any justice of the peace practice law before any justice’s court in the county In which he resides.”
[1]
In view of the nature and jurisdiction of a recorder’s court in a city or town, it being practically a justice’s court, we are satisfied it comes within the spirit and policy of the provision of section 171 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that, we have quoted, and that petitioner has no lawful right to practice in respondent’s court.
[2]
Regardless of any other question presented, it is well settled that
mandamus
will not lie to compel the performance of acts which are illegal, contrary to public policy, or which tend to aid an unlawful purpose. (See
Godwin
v.
Carolina Tel. & Tel. Co.,
136 N. C. 258, [103 Am. St. Rep. 941, 1 Ann. Cas. 203, and note, 67 L. R. A. 251, 48 S. E. 636].)
¶3
The application for a writ of
mandamm
is denied.
¶4
Angellotti, C. J., Wilbur, J., Lawlor, J., Olney, J., and Shaw, J., concurred.
