Moncur

Harlan Douglas Co. v. Moncur

Good Law
19 Cal. App. 177·1912 Cal. App. LEXIS 65·124 P. 1053
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 27, 1912Civ. No. 1155.California566 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

James, J.

Proceeding in mandamus to compel defendant, as judge of the superior court, to make an order of substitution of attorneys in an action entitled Harlan Douglas Company, a corporation, v. The Dean Drug Company, a corpora tion, now pending in the superior court of the county of Los Angeles. An alternative writ was issued herein, and a hearing has been had after return made thereto. It appears that on or about the twelfth day of January, 1912, a motion was made before the defendant, sitting as judge of the superior court, by Schweitzer & Hutton, Esqs., representing the Harlan Douglas Company, by which motion an order was requested that the attorneys mentioned be substituted as attorneys for plaintiff in the action referred to. The motion was resisted by the counsel who appeared as attorneys of record for the plaintiff in that action, and evidence by affidavits was received which established the following state of facts: On or about the sixteenth day of June, 1911, John Harlan, who then owned or controlled all of the capital stock of the Harlan Douglas Company, made a contract in writing with one C. P. Y. Watson whereby the said Harlan agreed to sell to Watson all of the capital stock…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.