Bailey v. Security Trust Co.
California Court of Appeal
APPLICATION for a Writ of Mandamus originally made to the District Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District to compel the delivery of personal property. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. E. L. Foster, Charles A. Barnhart, Leon E. Morris, Sullivan & Sullivan and Theo. J. Roche, Robert M. Clarke, and M. C. Lynch, for Petitioner.
1Opinion of the CourtConrey, P. J.
This is an application for a writ of mandate to require that the respondent deliver to the petitioner the personal property described in the petition. An alternative writ was issued. Respondent is now before the court for the purpose of showing cause why a peremptory writ should not be granted. Such writ should not issue unless it appearthat respondent should be compelled to perform the demanded act as an act which the law specially enjoins upon respondent ‘ ‘ as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station, ’ ’ or unless the writ should issue to compel the admission of petitioner “to…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Mohr v. LanganSupreme Court of Missouri · 1901
- Aigeltinger v. WhelanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- August v. GilmerWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1903
- Bailey v. BakerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1915
- Detroit & Mackinac Railway Co. v. Alpena Circuit JudgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1908
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Bogue v. RoethCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- Price v. PaceIdaho Supreme Court · 1931
- Aker v. ColemanIdaho Supreme Court · 1939
- Matteson v. Board of EducationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
- Elmore Jameson Co. v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939