Buckner v. Veuve
California Supreme Court
Application for a writ of prohibition. The petitioner was elected justice of the peace of San Jose Township at the election held January 8, 1883. The respondent was elected justice of the peace for the city of San Jose under the provisions of section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By virtue of the Act of March 17, 1874, the petitioner, as justice of the peace of the township, is ex-officio police justice or judge of the police court of the city of San Jose.
Read the full summary
Application for a writ of prohibition. The petitioner was elected justice of the peace of San Jose Township at the election held January 8, 1883. The respondent was elected justice of the peace for the city of San Jose under the provisions of section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By virtue of the Act of March 17, 1874, the petitioner, as justice of the peace of the township, is ex-officio police justice or judge of the police court of the city of San Jose. Petitioner alleged that on March 22, 1883, the respondent ousted him of the office of police judge for the city of San Jose, and…
1Per curiam
—
Quo warranta lies to prevent the usurpation of an office. Prohibition is not available as a remedy for that purpose.
Application for a writ of prohibition denied.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Walcott v. WellsNevada Supreme Court · 1890
- People v. ToalCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Nielsen v. GregoryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923