Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Corporations
STANDARD PIPE & SUPPLY CO. v. CALIFORNIA NORTHERN CORPORATION
73 F.2d 102·United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·1934
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
STANDARD PIPE & SUPPLY CO. v. CALIFORNIA NORTHERN CORPORATION.
No. 7603.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Oct. 10, 1934.
Matot, Stafford & Downing and Kenneth E. Matot, all of Los Angeles, Cal. (Rufus C. Porter, of San Pedro, Cal., and David P. Klein, of Los Angelos, Cal., of counsel), for petitioner.
Peirson M. Hall, U. S. Atty., and Leo Silverstein, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent.
Before WILBUR, SAWTELLE, and GARRECHT, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — WILBUR, Circuit Judge.]
WILBUR, Circuit Judge.
Petitioner prays for writ of mandamus to compel the trial judge to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction, which motion was taken under advisement on February 16, 1932. It is alleged in the petition that the trial court, after having expressed the opinion that the court was without jurisdiction, proceeded to administer the affairs of the receivership and was continuing so to do without a decision upon the motion to dismiss. The petition for writ of mandamus was verified April 25, 1933, and filed in this court on August 31, 1934. It now appears that in the meantime the trial court had fully concluded the matter in the court below and had entered its final decree on December 18,1933. Appropriate remedy in such a case is by appeal, and not by mandamus. Curtis v. Paramount Famous Lasky Corp. (C. C. A.) 38 F. (2d) 476; Curtis v. American Tel. & Tel. Co. (C. C. A.) 38 F.(2d) 476; In re Atlantic City R. R., 164 U. S. 633., 17 S. Ct. 208, 41 L. Ed. 579.
The petition is denied.