Opinion · California Supreme Court
People v. Sexton
37 Cal. 532
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- California Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- California
- Date
- 1869-07-01
- Topic
- general
By the Court, Sanderson, J.: This 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.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed People v. Sexton. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 4 opinions
This 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.)
Mandamus denied.