Corporations

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN BOND & INDEMNITY CORPORATION (a Corporation), Petitioner, v. RUBEN S. SCHMIDT, Judge of the Superior Court, etc., et al., Respondents

132 Cal. App. 39·District Court of Appeal of the State of California·1933·CA

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

[Civ. No. 8881. Second Appellate District, Division Two. May 16, 1933.] BENJAMIN FRANKLIN BOND & INDEMNITY CORPORATION (a Corporation), Petitioner, v. RUBEN S. SCHMIDT, Judge of the Superior Court, etc., et al., Respondents. F. E. Davis, Edw. Y. Jones and Milton H. Silverberg for Petitioner. Everett W. Mattoon, County Counsel, S. Y. 0. Prichard, Deputy County Counsel, and Frank L. Guerena for Respondents. [MAJORITY — WORKS, P. J.] WORKS, P. J. The writ of review was improperly issued in this proceeding. After return made to the writ our attention is first called in the briefs to the fact that the petition for the writ was unverified. The writ of review can be issued only upon a verified petition. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1069.) As we have so often said under similar circumstances, respondent judge is not a proper party to the proceeding. The writ and the accompanying restraining order are set aside and the proceeding is dismissed. Stephens, J., and Parker, J., fro tern., concurred.