State ex rel. Chemung Mining Co. v. Cunningham
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from District Court, Shoshone County. The writ of mandamus does not lie in any case where a doubt arises as to the duty of the person sought to be made to perform. It lies in a ease free of doubt and when there is no other remedy. (Harpending v. Haight, 39 Oal. 189, 2 Am.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from District Court, Shoshone County. The writ of mandamus does not lie in any case where a doubt arises as to the duty of the person sought to be made to perform. It lies in a ease free of doubt and when there is no other remedy. (Harpending v. Haight, 39 Oal. 189, 2 Am. Rep. 432; Fulton v. Hanna, 40 Cal. 278; People v. Supervisors, 28 Cal. 429; Williams v. Smith, 6 Cal. 91; Goodwin v. Glazer, 10 Cal. 33; Fo-garty v. Sparks, 22 Cal. 143; People v.' Olds, 3 Cal. 167, 58 Am. Dee. 398, Middleton v. Low, 30 Cal. 596; Hewill v. Lane, 53 Cal. 213.) The court will refuse the writ, if, upon…
1Opinion of the CourtSullivan, C. J.
— This is a proceeding brought in the district court for a writ of mandate to compel the defendant, Cunningham, as administrator, to execute a conveyance of an undivided one-third interest in a certain mining claim situated in Shoshone county. The facts are as follows: Clarence Cunningham, as administrator of the estate of David McUelvey, deceased, made application to the probate court of Shoshone county for an order to sell an undivided one-third interest of the Skookum lode mining claim. On said application an order of sale was granted, and the administrator caused notice to be posted and…
2Cited by7 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Brink v. McCrackenMontana Supreme Court · 1931
- Sweeny v. MayhewIdaho Supreme Court · 1899
- Kline v. ShoupIdaho Supreme Court · 1923
- Chemung Mining Co. v. HanleyIdaho Supreme Court · 1905
- Hanley v. SweenyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1901
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.