Wolf

Wolf v. Mulcrevy

Good Law
1917 Cal. App. LEXIS 391·35 Cal. App. 80·169 P. 259
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 22, 1917Civ. No. 2287.California291 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Application for a writ of mandate directing the respondent to file, number, and index a petition for the probate of the estate of Tobe Funkenstein, deceased, separately from a similar petition in the matter of the same estate theretofore filed and pending in the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco, of which respondent is clerk.

We are. of the opinion that the clerk of the court is not invested with power to determine whether or not these two petitions for the probate of the estate of Funkenstein are identically the same, but even if he were, we are strongly impressed with the contention made by the respondent that the only right which the petitioner has is to have his petition filed, and if the clerk fails to file it properly, the petitioner then has his remedy in the superior court by an application there to have his paper filed, numbered, and indexed by the clerk as it ought to be. In short, no injury comes to him because his petition is filed and numbered with a similar pending petition, and the presumption is that the superior court will do what the law demands in the premises. It is conceded that the writ of mandate is issued by this court as a matter of…

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.