Busick

Busick v. Superior Court

Good Law
16 Cal. App. 499·1911 Cal. App. LEXIS 274·118 P. 481
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 22, 1911Civ. No. 892.California2,817 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Burnett, J.

This is a petition for a writ of prohibition. In reply to the order to show cause, respondent filed a demurrer upon the ground “that the petition does not state facts sufficient to authorize the issuance of the writ prayed for,” and thus is presented the question for determination. It appears that on the sixteenth day of November, 1910, the board of supervisors of the county of Sacramento, after duly canvassing the returns of the general election held on the eighth day of November, 1910, by resolution duly passed, declared the result thereof, and on said sixteenth day of November, 1910, by resolution passed and entered on its minutes, the said board of supervisors declared the petitioner elected to the office of justice of the peace of said Riverside township. On the ninth day of December, following, Michael F. Shelley filed, in the office of the county clerk of said' county, a statement of his contest of the right of petitioner to said office of justice of the peace. On December 15th the court made an order setting the twenty-eighth day of said month as the day upon which a special session of the court should be held to hear said contest, and directed the clerk of the court to…

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.