Houghton v. Superior Court
California Supreme Court
APPLICATION for a Writ of Mandamus to compel the Superior Court to proceed with the trial of an action. Denied. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtWilbur, J.
The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to require the respondent Dudley Kinsell, judge of the superior court, to proceed with the trial of an action entitled C. S. Houghton v. Franklin A. Kales. That action is one to recover $2,538.60, the balance due upon a promissory note of F. A. Kales for $3,538.60. The defendant Kales, by way of setoff, pleads a joint judgment in favor of F. A. Kales and Jasper S. Connell for $36,230.59, upon which $8,039.38 has been paid. The case came on for trial March 9, 1921. Thereupon counsel announced that they were ready to proceed.
Upon the trial it was…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Brown v. CampbellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Harris v. BarnhartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- In re Estate of BlytheCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Naftzger v. GreggCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Brown v. CampbellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Domestic & Foreign Petroleum Co. v. LongCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
- Nowell v. NowellSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1969
- Robinson v. El Centro Grain Co.California Court of Appeal · 1933
- Koch-Ash v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- Eckert v. GrahamCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.