Clune v. Sullivan
California Supreme Court
Mandamus to Department Two of the Superior Court of San Francisco, and Sullivan, Judge.
1Opinion of the Court
Thornton, J.:
Application for a writ of mandate. The answer on which this application was heard sets forth the following facts: On the 28rd of October, 1879, an action was duly commenced in the Twelfth District Court for the City and County of San Francisco, by the plaintiff, for the recovery of money and damages against Cadman and Gibson, as partners, under the firm name of H. Keller & Co. On the 14th of November, 1879, Cad-man and Gibson demurred to the complaint. • That thereafter the cause was duly assigned to Department Two of the Superior Court of the said city and county, the respondent…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Draper v. NotewareCalifornia Supreme Court · 1857
- Blumenberg v. AdamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874
3Cited by3 opinions
- Duff v. EardleyIdaho Supreme Court · 1920
- Gerace v. BentleySuperior Court of The Virgin Islands · 2015
- Raisch v. Board of EducationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889