Philbrook

Philbrook v. Superior Court

Good Law
111 Cal. 31·1896 Cal. LEXIS 541·43 P. 402
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJanuary 16, 1896S. F. No. 267California1,274 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Henshaw, J.

Samuel W. Latz commenced an action in the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco against Louisa A. G-reenhood, executrix, appearing therein in person and not by attorney. After this action was at issue and ready for trial Horace W. Philbrook, petitioner herein, presented to the judge of the court a written transfer and assignment by Latz to himself of Latz’ interest and cause of action in said suit, and applied to the court for an order substituting himself in place of Latz as plaintiff therein.

In response to this application an order was made as permitted by the code, continuing said action in the name of Latz for the benefit of Philbrook, (Code Civ, Proc., sec. 385.)

Thereafter the cause coming on for trial petitioner herein appeared in person asserting the right in his own interest and on his own behalf to conduct the case of the plaintiff in the action so being prosecuted for his benefit.

The court, upon objection made by defendant’s attorney, refused to allow him to do so, and the case coming thus to a standstill it was continued to await a determination of the question. It is under these circumstances that application is made to this court for'a writ 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.