Shell Oil Co. v. District Court

Good Law
70 F.2d 394·1934 U.S. App. LEXIS 4172
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 26, 1934No. 7412California1,024 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Wilbur, J.

The petitioner, first having obtained leave of court so to do, filed a petition for an alternative writ of mandate or prohibition. The order to show cause was issued, and the respondents filed a return objecting, among other things, to the jurisdiction of this court to issue a writ of mandamus or prohibition in the matter. The respondents, upon the application of the complainant in the case of West Coast Petroleum Corporation v. Shell Oil Company, and others, now pending in the District Court of the United States' for the Western District of Washington, issued a subpmna duces tecum to E. L. Miller, an officer of the Shell Oil Company residing in this district, directing the witness to appear before Mrs. M. Y. Collins, a notary public in the city and county of San Francisco, state of California, with certain corporate records, and to give his testimony for use at the trial of the case in the above-mentioned court.

The application for the subpmna duces tecum and the order for its issuance were made without notice, but after its issuance the petitioners moved the court upon due notice to vacate the order and to quash the *395 subpoena duces tecum. This motion was duly presented and…

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.