Coffey

Coffey v. Grand Council

Good Law
1891 Cal. LEXIS 986·87 Cal. 367·25 P. 547
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJanuary 4, 1891No. 14010California547 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Paterson, J.

This is an application for a writ of mandate to compel Hon. J. P. Hoge, a judge of the superior court, to settle a bill of exceptions in the case of Coffey v. The Grand Council of the Young Men’s Institute, and should be entitled Grand Council v. Hoge, Judge.

On the petitioner’s own showing, we think it is not entitled to the writ prayed for.

After judgment in the court below, in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant in due time served its notice of intention to move for a new trial and proposed statement. Proposed amendments were served January 30, *368 1890, and on February 3d defendant served notice that they were not accepted, and that the proposed statement and amendments would be presented to the judge on February 10,1890, at ten, a. m. Counsel for the plaintiff appeared before the judge at the hour named, but no one appeared on behalf of the defendant, nor was the proper statement presented until two o’clock of the day named, when its counsel went to the chambers of the judge and asked permission to withdraw the proposed statement and amendments, for the purpose of seeing if the attorneys for the respective parties could not agree upon a settlement. Two days later, he…

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.