People v. Sexton

Decided July 1, 1869

California Supreme Court · decided 1869-07-01

This was an original application in this Court for a mandamus to compel the Hon. Warren T. Sexton, District Judge of the Second Judicial District, but at the time upon the bench of the District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District, for the City and County of San Francisco, to enter judgment in an action pending before him, wherein Bichólas Smith was plaintiff and John F. Penney and J. B. Thompson were defendants. The action of Smith against Penney and.

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 1935

3 state decisions

Relies on People ex rel. Polhemus v. Pratt · People ex rel. Wheaton v. Weston · People ex rel. Flagley v. Hubbard

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1869-07-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

By the Court, Sanderson, J.:

¶1This 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.)

¶2Mandamus denied.