Legal Opinion · Dissent

Erickson v. Municipal Court

California Supreme Court

Decided January 24, 1934No. Docket No. S.F. 14965Published

1Dissent

PRESTON, J., Dissenting.

I dissent.

The majority opinion takes a constricted view of the sole question involved and bases its conclusion upon a ground not urged by either side of the litigation. Both sides concede that the basic question raised was whether or not the Municipal Court of the City and County of San Francisco had jurisdiction to issue a writ of execution on an abstract of judgment, and the judgment-roll supporting it, coming from another jurisdiction. The writ of review issued by the superior court to the Municipal Court of the City and County of San Francisco expressly reaches the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Creditors Adjustment Co. v. NewmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  2. Adams v. BellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
  3. Buell v. BuellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Santini v. Justice's CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
  5. Wells, Fargo & Co. v. AnthonyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API